NAPINO AUTO & ELECTRONICS LTD Vs. PARMENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the matters are primarily the same, they are being disposed of together. However, for the sake of convenience the particular facts which are stated here relate to WPMS No. 632 of 2015 and are related to workman Parmender Singh. In any case, apart from minor differences of dates there is absolutely no difference in any of these four matters. Hence they are being adjudicated together.

(2.) This is an employer's writ petition. The order impugned dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer/Labour Court whereby it has been held that the enquiry proceedings against the workmen were in violation of principle of natural justice and fair play, and thereafter ordered that the adjudication in the matter will now be on the basis of evidence lead by the employer, on the validity of a fair enquiry.

(3.) All the respondents before this Court are workmen, which is an industry, namely, M/s Napino Auto & Electronics Ltd. (from hereinafter referred to as "employer"). Consequent to a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the workman, the services of the workman have been terminated vide order dated 11.03.2010. The aggrieved workman raised an industrial dispute and the matter was subsequently referred under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Under the established procedure and in accordance with the settled law labour court had to first frame the issues. The preliminary issue framed by the labour court was to the effect as to whether the enquiry against the workman was in accordance with the principle of natural justice or fair play or not. The labour court after making it a preliminary issue and asking both the parties to lead evidence on this aspect came to the conclusion that there has not been a fair enquiry in the matter. This conclusion is based upon the fact that the entire evidences, of the employer as well as the workman, were concluded on two dates i.e. 04.01.2010 and 05.01.2010. Moreover, the entire list of witnesses produced by the employer were not examined and even such witnesses were examined whose names did not figure in the list.