MASINA HOSPITAL Vs. HARI GANPAT KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1, a Ward boy, was dismissed from services in the year 1987. This was, according to the petitioner, done after holding a due enquiry into the charges. The respondent No. 1 filed Complaint (ULP) No. 283 of 1987. After going through the evidence and after hearing the Counsel for the parties at length, the Labour Court by an elaborate and reasoned order held that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer against the complainant-respondent No. 1 is not fair and proper. The petitioner-Hospital was given liberty to adduce evidence to prove the misconduct before the Court. This order was passed on 24th May, 1994.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against this order, the petitioner filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 78 of 1994. The Industrial Court partly allowed the revision application on the ground that the Labour Court has made certain observations in the absence of pleading and exceeded its jurisdiction and powers. It was also held that the Labour Court has given imaginary findings. The Industrial Court has held that the Labour Court without any pleadings has come to the conclusion that the charge sheet is vague. Considering this point, the order of the Labour Court has been set aside and the Labour Court has been directed to again decide the preliminary point as to whether the enquiry held against the respondent No. 1 is fair, proper and legal. This finding has been given by the Industrial Court by meticulously examining the evidence and coming to findings of fact which are contrary to the finding recorded by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court also observes that whilst exercising its supervisory powers the Industrial Court cannot reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence. Yet this is precisely what the Industrial Court had proceeded to do. Findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court have been set aside only on the ground that the Labour Court could not have come to the conclusion that the charge-sheet was vague. I am of the considered opinion that merely because the Labour Court examined the charge sheet itself would not amount to a finding without any evidence. It is a settled proposition of law that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act are not applicable before the Labour Court or before the Industrial Court. Both the Courts are to be guided by the principles of natural justice. On such a technical plea, the order of the Labour Court ought not to have been interfered with by the Industrial Court. The order in revision was passed by the Industrial Court on 9th August, 1999. So by then the poor workman has been out of employment for a period of 12 years. Not satisfied with the finding returned by the Industrial Court, the petitioner moved Review Application (ULP) No. 23 of 1999. This review application has also been dismissed. Thus the position that now emerges is that the petitioner would be permitted to re-argue the preliminary issue as to whether or not the enquiry is just and fair. In my view, the Industrial Court erred in upsetting the order passed by the Labour Court. The only direction issued by the Labour Court was to the effect that the petitioner would entitled to lead evidence to justify its action.

(3.) THE present petition has been filed challenging both the order in revision as well as the order in review. The order in review has been passed on 4th April, 2000 and the Industrial Court has directed the Labour Court to decide all the issues together.