(1.) These writ petitions are filed by the management challenging the preliminary order made in I.D.Nos.568/2000 dated 20.3.2006; I.D.No.291 of 2001 dated 23.3.2006; and I.D.No.529 of 2000 dated 23.3.2006 respectively, wherein the first respondent Labour Court gave a finding that the enquiry conducted by the management against the respective second respondent in respect of the charges are not fair and proper.
(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are that the second respondents were proceeded with for certain misconduct while they were serving as Operators in the petitioner factory at Hosur. Three charge memos dated 23.4.1999, 6.5.1999 and 7.5.1999 (against R-2 in W.P.No.11564/2006); 7.5.1999, 11.5.1999 and 20.5.1999 (against R-2 in W.P.No.11565/2006); and 22.4.1999, 23.4.1999 and 7.5.1999 (against R-2 in W.P.No.11566/2006) respectively, were issued and a joint enquiry was ordered. The second respondents refused to participate in the enquiry and therefore the enquiry was conducted in their absence. The second respondents were dismissed from service against which the second respondents preferred I.D.Nos.568/2000, 291/2000 and 529/2000 respectively before the first respondent contending that proceeding with the enquiry exparte without giving opportunity to the second respondents and without considering their requests made to postpone the enquiry pending conciliation proceedings before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, was not fair and proper. Since the fairness of enquiry itself was raised as a preliminary issue by the second respondents before the Labour Court, the said issue was considered as a preliminary issue.
(3.) The petitioner management contested the said industrial disputes by filing counter statement by stating that notice of hearing to attend the enquiry was issued to the second respondents for the enquiry. The second respondent appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted a letter and left the place after making request to postpone the enquiry till the conciliation talks pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem are over. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry by setting the second respondent as exparte and the management was permitted to mark exhibits. On the basis of the request made by the management representative to record the evidence on its side, enquiry was adjourned to 31.5.1999 and the same was also intimated to the second respondents. Exhibits were marked by the management and the proceeding was postponed to 5.6.1999. On 5.6.1999 also the second respondents submitted letter and left after making request to postpone the enquiry till the conciliation talks are over. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer examined three witnesses MW-1 to 3. Since there was no cross-examination, enquiry was concluded and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 8.6.1999 holding that the charges are proved. It was the contention of the management that the second respondents failed to avail the opportunity and the enquiry was unduly delayed and hence they were set exparte and Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry.