MANAGEMENT OF CHRISTIAN MISSION HOSPITAL DIOCESE OF MADURAI-RAMNAD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the Management of Christian Mission Hospital run by the Diocese of Madurai-Ramnad. THE 2nd respondent was working as a Medical Store Incharge in the said hospital with a salary of Rs.778.50 and he had put in 25 years of service. He was dismissed from service after conducting an enquiry. THE entire dismissal was based upon a report of the internal audit by one Suri & Co. THE 2nd respondent raised an Industrial Dispute and the same was taken on file before the 1st respondent Labour Court as I.D.No.470 of 1991. Before the Labour Court, the validity of the enquiry was attacked by the parties and the Labour Court gave a preliminary order on 11.02.1994 by holding that the enquiry conducted against the 2nd respondent was not fair and proper. After taking advantage of the opportunity furnished by the Labour Court, fresh evidence was let in. While the 2nd respondent was examined as W.W.1 on the said of the Management, 3 witnesses were examined as M.Ws.1 to 3. While no document was filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner/ Management filed 56 documents. THEy were marked as Exs.M.1 to M.56. THE Labour Court, on an analysis of the evidence (both oral and documentary), came to the conclusion that the best evidence was not produced before the Labour Court and mere reliance upon the audit report cannot have any relevance. THE Labour Court also held that there were discrepancies in the audit report with reference to the indents for certain medicines and Dr.Rajkumar, who was examined in the domestic enquiry, was not examined before the Labour Court. THE Labour Court also observed that either the Auditor or one of the Clerks of the Auditor's company should have been examined to the satisfaction of the Court. THErefore, the Labour Court, in paragraph No.14 of the Award, came to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with the evidence produced and in that view of the matter, held that the non employment of the 2nd respondent was not justified. However, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that since there has been bitter relationship between the Management and the 2nd respondent, it is not a fit case to order reinstatement and also by the exercise of power under Section 11 A of the I.D.Act computed Rs.50,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. THE Labour Court also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Bharat Frits Werner (P) Ltd -vs- Bharat Frits Werner (P) Ltd. and another reported in 1990(60) F.L.R. Page 482. It is against this Award, the present writ petition has been filed by the Management and an order of interim stay was granted on 15.09.1998. Subsequently, the stay was also made absolute on 26.12.2002.

(2.) MR.S.Jayaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the Management had not questioned the preliminary order, the Management had tried its best to place all the relevant materials before the Labour Court for coming at a proper conclusion. The Labour Court cannot seek that a particular witness to be examined and the examination of the Auditor is not imperative in pointing out the discrepancies found in the Auditor's report. The doctor was also not available and hence, he was not examined. But in any event, there was satisfactory evidence available before the Labour Court to hold the petitioner guilty.