KODAKKAT SERVICE COOP. SOCIETY LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the sake of convenience we advert to the contesting parties as the Management and the workman. Writ Appeal No. 619 of 1985 is by the Management challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 771 of 1985. O.P. No. 2749 of 1987 is also by the Management challenging the final award made against the appellant/Management in I.D. No. 96 of 1978. As the decision in the O.P. depends entirely upon the decision in the writ appeal, both of them were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The relevant facts that are necessary for disposal of these cases may briefly be stated as follows: - The workman was kept under suspension on 12th December 1977 and after holding a domestic enquiry the charges having been held proved the workman was dismissed from service by order made on 18th February 1978. The dispute regarding wrongful termination of the workman was referred in I.D. No. 96 of 1978 to the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The termination was challenged principally on the ground that the domestic enquiry was not properly held, that principles of natural justice have been violated and that the workman has been denied a reasonable opportunity of placing his case in the domestic enquiry. At the request of the parties the Labour Court decided to hear and dispose of as a preliminary issue the question as to whether the domestic enquiry is vitiated on the ground that it has not been properly held. The Labour Court after considering the case put forward by both the parties and their contentions recorded a finding on 27th April 1983 to the effect that the domestic enquiry is vitiated. Though a consequential final order could have been made immediately by the Labour Court it was not so done and the case stood adjourned. At a subsequent stage the Management made an application M.P. No. 14/84, dated 9th February 1984, presented on 29th March 1984, seeking an opportunity to lead evidence before the Labour Court to prove the charges levelled against the workman. This was followed by another application M.P. No. 24/84 wherein a request was made to permit amendment of the written statement taking a specific plea to lead evidence before the Labour Court to prove the charges levelled against the workman. Both the applications were heard together and disposed of by the Labour Court by a common order dated 14th December 1984. By the said order, the Labour Court rejected both the applications. It is the said order that was challenged by the appellant in O.P. No. 771 of 1985. The learned Single Judge having dismissed the Original Petition after coming to the conclusion that the order of the Labour Court does not call for interference, the decision is challenged in writ appeal. Subsequent to the passing of the order Ext. P-1 an award came to be made in favour of the workman on 31st December 1984 which has been challenged by the appellant in O.P. No. 2749 of 1987.

(3.) The principal grievance of the appellant/ Management is in regard to the decision of the Labour Court in not giving an opportunity to the Management of adducing evidence before the Labour Court to prove the charges levelled against the workman. The Labour Court has recorded a finding to the effect that the request for leading evidence before the Labour Court for the first time by an application made on 29th March 1984 though the Management had ample opportunity of doing so by filing application at earlier stages, is not maintainable. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the application is belated and that there are no good grounds to entertain the application made at a very belated stage.