LAWS(BOM)-2006-8-42

NRC LTD Vs. VIJAYKUMAR LAXMAN KABIR

Decided On August 23, 2006
NRC LTD. Appellant
V/S
VIJAYKUMAR LAXMAN KABIR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Rele, the learned Sr. counsel with piyush Shah for the petitioner-Company and ms. Gayatri Singh with Ms. Apoorva Kujwar for the respondent-workman. The Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are not necessary parties and they shall be deleted forthwith. Rule. Respondent waives service. Petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith by consent of the parties.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 has instituted complaint (ULP) No. 125 of 1997 challenging his termination from service and in the said complaint he moved an application for interim relief at Exhibit U-2. The learned Judge of the labour Court by her order dated June 8, 1999 passed the order on the preliminary issues viz. whether the enquiry conducted was fair and proper and whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were proper. After hearing both the parties and considering the record of the enquiry submitted before her, the learned judge of the Labour Court held that though the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse, the enquiry conducted was not fair and proper. This interlocutory order dated June 8, 1999 passed on the preliminary points came to be challenged by the petitioner in Revision application No. 58/1999 filed under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 and the learned Member was pleased to dismiss the said revision vide the judgment and order dated december 8, 2005. Hence this petition and though it is styled as petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution it has to be treated as filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) The learned Judge of the Labour Court held the domestic enquiry as not fair and proper only on the ground that the Enquiry Officer did not comply with the requirements of Clause 23 (4) of the Certified Standing Orders in as much as the complainant employee was not given an opportunity to submit his plea on conclusion of the enquiry proceedings. The learned Member of the Industrial Court did not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the Labour Court. Clause 23 (4) of the certified Standing Orders reads as under: