UNIVERSAL GLASS Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, the impugned award dated 20.3.2013, passed by the respondent No. 1 has been challenged, which was placed on the notice board on 24.9.2013. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner establishment was engaged in manufacturing of the glass bottles and terms of the employment was governed by the standing orders applicable to the factories. The respondent workman was appointed on 7.10.1978 on the post of sorter. The allegation was that he instigated the employees and participated in strike and charge sheet was submitted. The domestic enquiry was conducted and after enquiry report he was dismissed from service by order dated 16.2.1987. The industrial dispute was raised and the matter was placed before the Conciliation Officer, When conciliation failed, the dispute was referred by the State Government under section 4K of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 on 23.12.1991 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 75/1993. The reference was challenged before this Court on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 31456/93. Subsequently the same was dismissed. The State Government amended reference by deleting Universal Karmchari Sangh and in its place the name of contesting workman was substituted by order dated 7.10.2008 because it was found that Universal Karmchari Sangh who/spoused the case of the workman was no longer in existence. The written statement was filed by the parties. The issue was framed on 3.12.2008 with regard to the validity of the domestic inquiry. The application was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 19.12.2008 to decide the issue regarding validity of the domestic enquiry as preliminary issue and the application was rejected by the Labour court on 21.4.1991. Thereafter the application was filed to recall the order on 14.5.2009. Being aggrieved against that order the Writ Petition No. 47659/09 was filed on behalf of the petitioner before this Court. That writ petition was dismissed with cost on 24.5.2010 with the observation to conclude the proceeding within four months. Thereafter the impugned award was passed on 20.3.2013 with the direction to reinstate the respondent workman with full back wages.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was specific averment in para 25 of the written statement that if it was found that the domestic enquiry was not proper or that was against the principle of natural justice, then the opportunity be given to the petitioner employer to prove the charges against the respondent workman.

(3.) The application was also moved to decide the same as preliminary issue though the writ petition was dismissed. However, when it was decided by the Labour court that domestic enquiry was not proper or it was perverse, then the opportunity should have been given to adduce the evidence to prove the charges. He further submitted that when it was found that the enquiry report was not valid, then the entire materials adduced by the parties were required to be considered by the Labour court independently and case was not to be decided on the basis of the inquiry report. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was in employment for about nine years from 1978 to February 1987 and the impugned award was passed after about 24 years to reinstate the workman with full back wages and during this period he might have been engaged somewhere else, hence on these grounds the impugned award is illegal. He relied the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Divyash Pandit v. Management, 2006 AIR(SC) 92. He further submitted that according to Apex Court when the Labour court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was non est then the Labour Court should have given one opportunity to the petitioner employer to establish the charges before passing the award in favour of the respondent workman, hence in view of the aforesaid the impugned award is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed.