MADURAI-DEVAKOTTAI TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNFORTUNATELY, the second respondent does not appear either in person or by counsel. But it is clear that we have got to tell the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, to follow the proper procedure as envisaged by Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P. P. Mundhe 1975-II L. L. J. 379 : (1975) 48 F. J. R. 152. When as a result of a domestic enquiry, there is a dismissal or removal from service of a workman and the matter takes the shape of an industrial dispute, the Presiding Officer has first to see whether the domestic enquiry was properly held in accordance with the norms of the principles of natural justice and if there was any defect or violation of such principles of natural justice. Of course, when this question itself is in controversy, the Presiding Officer will be justified in taking evidence confined to that question. The complaint before us is that, without adopting that course, and satisfying himself whether the domestic enquiry was proper in that sense, the Presiding Officer has called upon the parties to adduce evidence on the merits. If that is so, this will be erroneous. We direct the Presiding Officer to follow the procedure as laid down in Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P. P. Mundhe, (supra) before proceeding further. There will be an order accordingly. No costs.