KRISHNA BHARATI CO OPERATIVE LIMITED Vs. CHANDRAMANI BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The workman asserted his right to challenge the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry at the time when the decision on preliminary issue was taken by the labour court and the labour court decided in his favour. Can the workman be said to have waived his right to contend that the departmental inquiry held against him was not legal and valid and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice because his advocate had filed pursis that he did not challenge the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry ? This is the principal question which needs to be decided in this petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India filed by the employer - Co-operative Society.

(2.) The respondent workman was engaged as security guard by the petitioner society. He was charged with the misconduct of obtaining reimbursement of two medical bills by attempting to forge the prescription of medical practitioner one Dr. Bhatra. Charge-sheet dated July 30 1984 was issued to him. He replied to the same on August 6 1984 Ultimately order dated December 26 1984 was passed and the respondent workman was removed from service. Thereupon the respondent raised industrial dispute and claimed that he be reinstated in service on his original post with full back wages. In the statement of claim the workman inter alia contended that the departmental inquiry held against him was ex parte; that it was not legal and proper. The petitioner society also filed its reply. By application dated September 5 1986 (Exh.11) the respondent workman requested the labour court to raise preliminary issue as regards legality and validity of departmental inquiry held by the petitioner-society. The labour court passed order below the application that the issue with regard to the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry be heard as preliminary issue and at this stage permitted the parties to lead oral evidence on this issue. It appears that for quite some time the proceedings remained pending before the labour court. On December 9 1991 the labour court passed the impugned order holding that the departmental inquiry held against the respondent workman was not legal and was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The labour court directed that the petitioner-society may lead evidence to prove the misconduct of the workman and directed to post the case on January 7 1992 for proceedings further in accordance with law. The petitioner society has challenged the legality and validity of this interim order by filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The Labour Court has held the following preliminary issue against the petitioner-society :