MANAGEMENT OF THANJAVUR TEXTILES LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition for the issue of writ of certiorari has been filed to quash the award passed in I. D. No. 42 of 1982, dated March 30, 1988, and the common order passed in I. A. Nos. 952 and 1167 of 1987 in I. D. No. 42 of 1982, dated March 25, 1988, by the first respondent, the Presiding Officer, 1st Additional Labour Court, Madras.

(2.) THE facts, as narrated in the affidavit of the petitioner, in brief, are as follows: The second respondent, who was working under the petitioner, which is a textile mill in Thanjavur, on March 29, 1981, had refused to obey the directions of the supervisor of the mill to work in another section and he also refused to leave the mill. Therefore, a charge memo was issued to the second respondent on March 30, 1981, for which an enquiry was conducted by the Personnel Officer of the company. On the side of the management, three witnesses were examined. Before the examination of the second witness for the management, the second respondent wanted to recall the first witness without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the enquiry officer refused to recall the witness and thereafter, the other two witnesses were fully examined and also cross-examined by the second respondent. The enquiry Officer gave his findings holding that the second respondent was guilty of all the charges alleged against him and, therefore, the management had dismissed him from service by their order dated May 5, 1981, with effect from March 29, 1981. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute in I. D. No. 42 of 1982, which was referred for adjudication before the first respondent, 1st Additional Labour Court, Madras. The first respondent framed the issue on the preliminary point whether the enquiry conducted by the Personnel Officer of the company against the workman was fair and proper for the reason that the first witness of the management was not permitted to be recalled, the Labour Court has found that the enquiry was not fair and it was defective. The matter was thereafter posted for further hearing on July 28, 1987. In view of the preliminary order, the management filed LA. No. 952 of 1987 contending that the first witness, who was examined on the side of the management, died on October 3, 1985, and, therefore, the Labour Court could rely upon the evidence of the other two witnesses recorded by the enquiry officer. The second respondent-workman filed I. A. No. 1167 of 1986 to reinstate him in service as the enquiry conducted by the Personnel Officer was not fair. The learned Presiding Officer of the 1st Additional Labour Court has refused to reappraise the evidence of M. Ws.-2 and 3, the witnesses examined before the domestic enquiry, and he took the view that their evidence has to be eschewed as the enquiry was found defective and as no evidence was let in before him, he allowed the application of the second respondent-workman, viz. , I. A. No. 1167 of 1987 ordering for the reinstatement of the workman whereas he : dismissed I. A. No. 952 of 1987 refusing to reappraise the evidence. In view of these findings, the management has filed this writ petition to quash the above orders.

(3.) THE short question that has come up for consideration is whether the first respondent Tribunal is entitled to eschew the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry and ignore the same for the reason that the enquiry was found unfair and defective and call for fresh evidence from the management to adjudicate upon the dispute.