H. B. RAJU Vs. NILGIRIS CENTRAL CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is of the award passed by the second respondent in Industrial Dispute No. 52 of 1980. That related to an industrial dispute raised by the petitioner over his non-employment by the first respondent. The petitioner, who was in the employ of the first respondent, as a supervisor, was dismissed-from service on disciplinary action. There were eighteen charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner admitted some of the charges. According to the first respondent, in view of the admission of some of the charges and the gravity of other charges borne out by records, a formal enquiry was not thought to be necessary. The first-respondent offered to place before the second-respondent evidence in proof of the charges. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that since there was no domestic enquiry, preceding the order of dismissal, it must stand ignored. However, the second respondent permitted the parties to place evidence with regard to the charges and that was the subject-matter of consideration and the second respondent was convinced that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. It is well settled that whenever it is found there has been no enquiry or there has been a defective enquiry, the employer can still justify his action by adducing appropriate evidence before the Labour Court. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. However, the second respondent granted the petitioner monetary compensation of Rs. 6,150 on a concession made by the first respondent that one month salary for every year of service could be paid to the petitioner.

(2.) Sri V. Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, would urge only one point and that is when there had been no enquiry preceding the order of dismissal and evidence in substantiation of the charges was placed only for the first time before the second respondent the order of dismissal must be deemed to have become effective only on the date of the award of the second respondent, and the petitioner ought to have been awarded full back-wages upto the date of the award. It must be first pointed out that the petitioner never advanced such a contention before the second respondent. He has also not raised this point in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The first respondent had no occasion to meet this contention, except in the course of oral submissions before this Court. Even otherwise, the power is given to the Labour Court to permit the employer to justify his action by adducing the appropriate evidence. Merely because that process is adopted, it is not possible to ignore the action already taken. The evidence placed is only in substantiation and in justification of the action already taken. The view of the highest Court in the land is that when on an appraisal of the evidence adduced before it. the Labour Court finds that the order of dismissal is justifiable, its approval of the same relates back to the date of the order of dismissal. The observations by way of obiter in the subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court have not altered the above view. My attention has not been drawn to any latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court pointedly overruling its earlier view. The petitioner did not raise this point earlier. There is a total lack of bom fides on the part of the petitioner in raising this point at a belated stage in the course of arguments before this Court. It must be noted that the petitioner was guilty of extraordinary laches in moving even the process for industrial adjudication. The dismissal of the petitioner took place in April 1974, and he has set the process for industrial adjudication in motion only in 1979. His explanation for the said laches has been found to be purely (sic) by the second respondent. Even if there is any merit or substance in this contention, he cannot have any indulgence over the same before this Court in its highly prerogative writ jurisdiction. Hence, I am not able to accept this contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was only on the concession made by the first respondent, the monetary compensation has been paid. No other point was urged before me. I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same fails and it is dismissed. No costs.