MANAGEMENT OF KALLAKURICHI CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, CUDDALORE AND C FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed by the petitioner Cooperative Sugar Mills represented by its Special Officer. In this writ petition, the challenge is to the preliminary order dated 8.5.2007 as well as the final Award dated 4.6.2008 made in I.D.No.29 of 1999 passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Cuddalore.

(2.) By the preliminary Award dated 8.5.2007, the labour court held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner mill was opposed to principles of natural justice. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner mill did not demand any opportunity to lead fresh evidence, the labour court on its own had granted liberty to the management to lead a fresh evidence before the labour court to justify the dismissal. This order of the labour court is clearly erroneous as the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Lakshmidevamma (Smt), 2001 5 SCC 433has held that unless liberty is sought for by the employer to lead fresh evidence, the court need not and should not give any opportunity for leading evidence. It was thereafter, in the fresh opportunity, no evidence was let in by the management. It was only the workman, i.e., the second respondent who got into the box. He had stated that he was suffering from unemployment, facing acute economic hardship and is doing some hard cooli works and that in case if an Award is passed, he should be given backwages also. Subsequently, he was cross examined by the management on 1.4.2008 and he was questioned about conducting of domestic enquiry. Despite opportunity being given, it was only the old enquiry proceedings which remain continued to be on record of the labour court. The labour court in its final award had indicated that since the management had failed to make use of the opportunity to substantiate the charges, it has to be held that charges have not been proved. Therefore, the workman second respondent was eligible for reinstatement with service continuity. On the question of backwages, it held that since the dispute has been raised in the year 1999, he is eligible only for 50% of backwages vide award dated 4.6.2008. Challenging both the orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition was admitted on 8.7.2009. Pending the writ petition, this court had granted an interim stay on condition that the petitioner should pay the entire arrears of subsistence allowance within eight weeks.