WORKMEN OF MADURA CO Vs. LABOUR COURT QUILON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. 827/61 is an application for a writ of certiorari to quash an award passed by the Labour Court, Quilon. The question referred for adjudication was "dismissal of Syrank O. M. Thommy". Two charges were framed against O. M. Thommy by the management. The first charge was :

(2.) The Labour Court found that the person who conducted the enquiry on the first charge was disqualified from conducting the enquiry as he was one of the persons against whom Thommy had made the allegations in Ext. M 1 in the reply to the first charge. As regards the second charge, the Labour Court found that there was no evidence to show that the allegation made by Thommy in the reply to the first charge was intended to refer to the officers of the company and therefore Thommy was not guilty of any indisciplinary conduct in sending the reply to the first charge. The Labour Court therefore set aside the order of the management dismissing Tliommy and in lieu of reinstatement directed the management to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,500 to him as well as the back wages. The management has filed O. P. 827 of 1964 to quash the award, in so far as it has interfered with its order dismissing Thommy. Thommy has filed O. P. 361/1961 questioning the correctness of the award in so far as the Labour Court has refused his prayer for reinstatement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in O. P. 827/1964 argued that there was no allegation in the written statement of Thommy before the Labour Court that the Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry into the first charge was biased against him and that in the absence of a definite allegation to that effect it was not possible for the management to have met the case of bias on the part of the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Balagangadhara Menon, appearing for the Labour Court, submitted that where the Labour Court found that the proceedings of the management were vitiated on the ground that they were conducted against the principles of natural justice, it was the duly of that Court to have set aside the proceedings notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific plea of bias in the written statement of the Union. It was submitted by him that the enquiry conducted by the management was against the principles of natural justice as there was the likelihood of bias in the person who conducted the enquiry.