ECHJAY INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. SR BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned award dated 24.01.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference [LCR] No. 982 of 1984, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman with continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company engaged in engineering industry. A group of workmen resorted to illegal strike allegedly at the instigation and incitement of the respondent from 13.07.1980 to 23.08.1980 for revision of wages, etc. During the said period, an earlier settlement dated 07.07.1979 was in force, wherein, there was an express condition that during the operation of the settlement, which was to expire on 30.06.1982, the workmen shall not raise any demands. The Government banned the strike on 23.08.1980 and referred certain demands of the workers to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication in the form of Reference [IT] No. 502 of 1980. The Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 19.11.1984 rejected the said reference. Being aggrieved by the said order, the union preferred Special Civil Application No. 2298 of 1985 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.02.1995.

(3.) Mr. Patel, learned Sr. Advocate appearing with Mr. Varun Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the findings and the conclusion on which the inquiry is held to be vitiated, are not tenable and the Labour Court has committed an error in holding the inquiry to be illegal. He further submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to the settled principle of law inasmuch as while setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner, the Labour Court has not observed the principles governing the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act [the Act for short]. He has submitted that while exercising the powers u/s. 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court has to give opportunity to the employer concerned to lead evidence and to prove the charge against the workman, if such permission is applied for in the written statement. He has further submitted that such permission for prayed for, but the Labour Court has decided the Reference finally, without affording such opportunity to the petitioner, though the matter was at the stage of deciding the legality of the departmental inquiry. In this case, while exercising the powers under the said proviso, the Labour Court has not given any opportunity to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was not given opportunity to lead its evidence and straightaway the impugned award came to be passed. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is in violation of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of the Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. The Management & Ors. reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227, wherein the Court has observed as under : The mere fact that no enquiry or defective enquiry has been held by the employer does not by itself render the dismissal of workman illegal. The right of the employer to adduce evidence justifying his action for the first time in such a case is not taken away by the proviso to S. 11-A. Legal position as existing prior to coming into force of S.11-A and changes effected thereby explained.