CHERUPPU THOZHILALI UNION Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions both the management and the union challenge the same award passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode in I.D. No. 92/93. The issue referred for adjudication was justifiability of dismissal of the two workmen of the Management. The workmen were dismissed from service on being found guilty of the misconduct of theft, in a domestic enquiry conducted for the purpose. In view of the fact that the dismissal was after an enquiry the Labour Court considered the question of validity of the enquiry as a preliminary point. By a preliminary order the Tribunal held that the enquiry was valid and proper. Thereafter the Labour Court considered as to whether there is a sufficient evidence adduced in the enquiry to hold the workmen guilty of the misconduct alleged against them. In Ext.P1( in both writ petitions) award, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence adduced in the enquiry to hold the workmen guilty of the charge levelled against them. Thereafter the Tribunal considered the justifiability of the punishment of dismissal imposed on them. Ultimately the Labour Court directed payment of compensation of the Rs. 7,500 to each workman in lieu of reinstatement. The Union is challenging the validity of the preliminary order on the ground that the enquiry was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. The management challenges the final award on the ground that, after finding the workmen guilty of misconduct of theft, the Labour Court ought not have directed payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

(2.) The contention of the union is that although the Enquiry Officer allowed the presence of the enquiry officer in the enquiry, the union representative was not permitted to cross examine the witnesses. The second contention is that the workmen were not given the copy of the depositions. These contentions were considered by the Labour Court in the preliminary order in paragraphs 7 and 8 as follows;

(3.) The union has not chosen to adduce evidence before the labour court to prove their contentions. The counsel for the union was not able to point out anything in the proceedings in the enquiry which goes to show that they had in fact requested the Enquiry officer to permit the union representative to cross- examining the workmen which was refused. On the other hand they themselves cross-examined the witnesses. Therefore unless the union adduced evidence to prove that such a request was made before the Enquiry Officer and he refused that opportunity, the union cannot now contend that such an opportunity was denied to the workmen, especially since there is nothing in the enquiry proceedings to show that such an opportunity was asked for and declined and the workers themselves had cross-examined the witnesses also. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the said contention. Regarding non-furnishing of the copy of depositions, admittedly, the entire enquiry was over in one day. It is on record in the enquiry proceedings that workers did not request to adjourn the enquiry to another day and that they did not demand copies of depositions. Here also the union did not adduce evidence that they had requested for copies of the depositions which was refused failing which they cannot contend that the enquiry is vitiated for non-supply of copies of depositions.