IDUKKI DISTRICT ESTATE WORKERS UNION Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE workmen represented by the petitioner were dismissed after a domestic enquiry by the second respondent. An industrial dispute was raised and exhibit P-1 is the reference order. In the proceedings a preliminary issue was raised and by exhibit P-4, dated 9th February, 1983, the Labour Court (first respondent) found that "workmen were not given sufficient opportunity to establish their innocence. Enquiry to that extent is vitiated. "

(2.) THEREAFTER, additional evidence was taken and three witnesses (WW2 to 4) were examined for the workmen. One of the workmen and the enquiry officer were examined respectively, as WW1 and MW1, as seen from exhibit P-6 (paragraph 5 ). Thereafter, the first respondent considered the matter and found that charges 1 and 3 were established. Punishment of discharge from service was imposed. Exhibit P-6 order is challenged on three grounds. It is contended that the first respondent should not have acted on evidence recorded at the domestic enquiry. It was also conterided that the findings are unsupported by evidence and that the punishment imposed is unduly harsh.

(3.) THE petitioner would contend that, since the domestic enquiry was found to be improper, the evidence recorded therein could not be relied on. According to counsel, if the domestic enquiry is illegal, all that took place during the enquiry is wiped out. I am unable to accept this submission on principle or precedent. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that the Labour Court shall rely only on the material on record. What is 'material on record' came up for consideration in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. Firstone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. 1973-I-LLJ-278. In the said decision (paragraph 46), the Court observed that 'material on record' takes in (at page 298):