SHARFUDDIN ABDUL HAMID Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Industrial Court dated 12-8-2003. By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has set aside the order of the trial Court dated 12-8-2002 and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court. It appears that the petitioner was charged with negligence due to an accident, an enquiry was conducted and found him guilty of negligence. The labour Court framed the following issues and answered them in the, manner given below :

(2.) THE respondent M. S. R. T. C. had pleaded in the written statement that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is vitiated, they ought to be given a chance to prove the misconduct of the petitioner before the Labour Court. This was not allowed by the Labour Court. Therefore, they preferred a revision before the Industrial Court. The respondent corporation contended that the Labour Court was bound to allow the Corporation an opportunity to substantiate the charges in view of the fact that the findings of Enquiry Officer are found to be per verse by the Labour court. This argument has been accepted by the learned Industrial Court.

(3.) MR. Khan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an employee need not be afforded any opportunity where the findings of the enquiry Officer are found to be per verse. According to the learned Counsel, the employer is entitled to such an opportunity only if the enquiry is found to be procedurally unfair or illegal. This submission has no merit in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (Bharat Forge Company Ltd. v. A. B. Zodge and another), reported in 1996 (II) C. L. R. 345 relied upon by the Mr. Dharmadhikari, the learned Counsel for the Corporation. In paragraph 7, the Supreme Court concluded as follows :