PATTARAISWAMY S Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the order of the learned Judge in W. P. No. 12955 of 1999.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order of the Labour Court, Madurai dated July 7, 1999 in I. A. No. 125 of 1999 in I. D. No. 353 of 1992. The writ petition was filed by the Management, aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court in allowing the petition by a workman under Rule 34 and Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Disputes Rules, praying for reopening of his side and to adduce evidence.

(3.) THE appellant/worker who was working as a Mould Press Operator in the respondent/company stood charged with several allegations of misconduct by virtue of a charge memo dated September 25, 1989. After an enquiry, the enquiry officer, in and by his findings dated February 15, 1991, held that the charges were proved and the Management, by its order dated March 9, 1991 dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant raised an industrial dispute under Section 2a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in I. D. No. 353 of 1992. Apart from other grounds, the appellant also contended that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner and was violative of principles of natural justice. In the counter, the Management contended that the procedure adopted by the Management in the conduct of the enquiry was proper and in conformity with principles of natural justice. However if the Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was vitiated, the Management may be permitted to lead evidence to justify their action. According to the Management-respondent, before the predecessor Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, the request by the Management for consideration of the preliminary issue was accepted and the Management had filed 56 documents relating to the enquiry and other records on September 9, 1993 which were later marked with consent. It is further alleged that after several adjournments, the appellant sought to file certain documents in his defence, but the said request was opposed by the Management on the ground that the Tribunal would get its jurisdiction to consider the evidence only after coming to the conclusion either that no enquiry had been held or the enquiry conducted was defective. By an order dated July 19, 1996, the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed upholding the stand of the Management that the appellant cannot lead evidence until a finding on the preliminary issue was rendered. The hearing of the preliminary issue was posted on August 28, 1996. After subsequent adjournments, the then Presiding Officer retired and after the new Presiding Officer, the appellant again chose to pray for leading evidence and by an order dated December 10, 1997, the plea of the appellant was rejected holding that the validity of the domestic enquiry could be decided as a preliminary issue. Not being satisfied with the said finding, the appellant again filed I. A. No. 191 of 1998 for receiving the documents on his side, which was also rejected by the Labour Court. Thereafter, again the appellant filed the present LA. No. 125 of 1999 seeking for a composite hearing and to lead evidence on his side.