SHANTILAL CHANDULAL SHAH Vs. INDUSTRIAL COURT AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or order is directed against the order passed by the industrial court, respondent 1, in Appeal (I. C.) No. 95 of 1966. The petitioner who was the appellant before the industrial court was employed as a kanta karkun by respondent 2, Ahmedabad Laxmi Cotton Mills Company, Ltd. , Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the mills ). An inquiry was held against him by the manager of the mills in 1964 on certain allegations which are not material for the purpose of this petition. At the conclusion of the inquiry an order was passed on 26 February, 1964, by which the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the mills. The petitioner challenged this order of dismissal in Appellant No. 580 of 1964 filed in the first labour court at Ahmedabad. The learned Judge held that the finding of the inquiry officer cannot be held to be perverse or totally unsustainable and further held that the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner was legal and proper. In accordance with the finding, he dismissed the application of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the industrial court at Ahmedabad being Appeal (I. C.) No. 95 of 1966. The learned member of the industrial court who heard the appeal held that the inquiry by the manager against the appellant was vitiated and the order of dismissal to that extent would be bad. After having reached this conclusion, the learned member proceeded further to consider whether there was evidence in support of the charge that was levelled against the petitioner and found that the order was only technically defective and ordered that the mills should convert the order of dismissal into one of discharge under standing orders, within two months from the date of the order of the industrial court. The validity of this order of the industrial court is challenged in this petition.

(2.) SRI C. T. Daru, learned advocate who appeared for the petitioner, urged that respondent 1 having held that the inquiry held by the manager of respondent 2 mills against the petitioner was vitiated and to that extent the order of dismissal was bad, he could not have relied upon the same evidence to reach a finding that the defect was only a technical nature and then to pass an order that the order of dismissal should be converted into one of discharge.

(3.) THE petitioner was serving as a kanta karkun with respondent 2 mills. The allegation against him was that the three employees of the mills, namely, Abdul Rashid Abdul Gafur, Maganlal Parshottam and Jehangir Mayuddin approached the labour welfare officer of respondent 2 mills, one Sri Shaikh and gave their applications for the loan from the provident fund and they also producted certificates in each case issued by Dr. R. M. Bharr. As the certificates produced by each of the workers were issued by the same doctor a suspicion arose in the mind of Sri Shaikh, and on a further enquiry from the concerned workers it transpired that these certificates were produced by the petitioner and he had taken some money from each of the workers. A complaint of each of the workers was recorded at that time and on the basis of these three complaints an enquiry was instituted against the petitioner. All the three workers hereinbefore mentioned were examined in the course of the inquiry, the petitioner alleged that he had asked for the copies of the complaints of the three workers which were produced before the labour court but the same were not given and therefore, he could not properly cross-examine these three workers. It is the contention of the petitioner that as he was not given the copies of the complaints of the concerned workers, who were in fact, examined in the inquiry by the manager, against him, he had no reasonable opportunity to properly cross-examine and that the inquiry was thus conducted in flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice. The learned Judge of the labour court held that there is nothing to show that the present petitioner had asked for the copies of the complaints Exs. 8, 11 and 14 on the basis to which the inquiry was commenced against him and if he had not asked for those copies the question of furnishing the copies did not arise and there was no violation or disregard of the rules of natural justice. It may be mentioned that in the inquiry before the labour court, no evidence was led on behalf or respondent 2 mills except producing the papers of the inquiry. In the appeal, the learned member of the industrial court after carefully examining the evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner had demanded the copies of the complaints Exs. 8, 11 and 14 of the three workers and that it was on the basis of these complaints that the inquiry was started and that they were material documents and as these documents were not made available to the petitioner against whom the inquiry was being held, the inquiry was vitiated and the dismissal order would be bad is law.