ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT COUMBATORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is to quash the order of the labour Court rendered in Industrial Dispute No. 152 of 1971 dated May 31, 1972. The short facts are as follows: An industrial dispute relating to the non-employment of the 2nd respondent was referred to the Labour Court in G. O. R. No. 2105, Labour Department, dated October 13, 1971, at the instance of workman who was working as a watchman in the writ petitioner company for twelve years. On February 2, 1970, the management issued a show-cause notice to him in connection with a reported theft of copper wire belonging to the company on the night of December 28|29, 1969. Pending enquiry, he was suspended. On February 4, 1970, the claimant requested the management to furnish him with a copy of the report on the basis of which the action was taken against him and also furnish him with the list of witnesses for the management. The management accordingly furnished the same together with a report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Madukkarai. However, it did not furnish the copies of the statement of witnesses. By his letter dated march 18, 1970, the claimant requested the management to adjourn the domestic enquiry till the case against him was over. He further stated that he would not be in a position to take part in the domestic enquiry till the criminal case was disposed of. His request for adjournment was refused. Therefore, the matter was proceeded ex parte, on March 28, 1970. Thereafter the management dismissed him from service, by a letter dated March 29, 1970, with effect from April 30, 1970. A dispute was raised under Section 2-A of the Industrial disputes Act which ultimately was referred to the Labour Court wherein the claimant prayed for setting aside the ex parte order of dismissal and for reinstating him with back wages, and continuity of service.

(2.) THE management filed the counter stating that the reference was incompetent since the dispute was not raised before the management. No exception could be taken to the procedure adopted in the domestic enquiry. It has been done in a fair and proper manner. Even on merits, the non-employment of the workman was perfectly justified and the same was not liable to be interfered with. However, should the Labour Court find that the non-employment was not justified, it is a fit case in which monetary compensation and not reinstatement would be proper. The Labour Court took up the matter for adjudication in Industrial Dispute No. 152 of 1971 and by its order dated May 31, 1972 (which has been impugned in this writ petition) held that the workman's stand that he would not participate in the enquiry till the criminal case came to a close was not justifiable. The Labour Court, after following the decision of our court held that the provision in Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act was 'intra vires'. The finding of the enquiry officer in the domestic enquiry was based on the evidence of a co-accused which had not been corroborated in any manner and any finding based on such uncorroborated and untested testimony of an accomplice was not admissible in evidence and therefore he characterised that finding as perverse. On this finding, instead of ordering reinstatement, it ordered for nine months' emoluments in lieu of reinstatement and thus granted a monetary compensation.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the writ petitioner strenuously urges before me that the finding that the enquiry officer should not have acted upon the uncorroborated evidence of the accomplice is incorrect in law. In support of his submission he relies on two judgments of this court, one of Kailasam, J. , in Rangarajan v. State of Madras (1966) 30 F. J. R. 199. and the other of Ismail, J. , in Parry's Confectionary Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras (1974) 45 F. J. R. 329. The latter judgment has been confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 410 of 1974 by a Division Bench.