RAYMON GLUES AND CHEMICALS Vs. BECHARBHAI MADHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Having gone through the award of the Labour Court at Ahmedabad made in Ref. (LCA) No. 1010 of 1976 dated 3rd August, 1983, I am satisfied that this petition deserves to be accepted and the matter has to be remanded back to the Labour Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law.

(2.) The respondent-workman has been dismissed from the services after holding a full-fledged domestic inquiry by the petitioner management. The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute challenging there under the order of his dismissal from services made by the petitioner. Reference has been made of the industrial dispute by the State Government to the Labour Court and under the impugned award the dismissal of the workman was declared to be illegal and arbitrary and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post with continuity of service and 50% of the back wages has also been awarded.

(3.) The respondent-workman has challenged his dismissal from services inter-alia, on the ground that the domestic inquiry held against him was not fair and proper. From the award which has been given by the Labour Court, it is borne out that the Labour Court has considered that the domestic inquiry held against the respondent-workman was not proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In the statement of claim, the respondent-workman has, raised a plea that the domestic inquiry was not fairly and properly conducted by the management, but this issue regarding the, fairness of the domestic inquiry was not decided by the Labour Court as a preliminary issue. The counsel for the petitioner made a statement before this Court on a question put to her by the Court that the Labour Court has not decided the question of the fairness of the inquiry as a : preliminary issue. She has further contended that this issue has been decided by the Labour Court while deciding the reference finally, and as such, the petitioner has been deprived of its right to prove the misconduct before the Labour Court by leading the evidence.