RAMESH LAXMAN RAUL Vs. SOUTHERN MACHINE INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were charge-sheeted by their employer-respondent No. 1 on the allegation that although the workmen on the establishment of the first respondent were ready and willing to work they were prevented by the petitioners from doing so by" threats and coercion. Domestic enquiries were held in these charges and ultimately dismissal orders were passed against the petitioners. They raised industrial disputes in that regard and claimed that they should be reinstated in their original posts with continuity of service and full back wages. The disputes were referred to the first Labour Court, Pune and were numbered Reference (IDA) Nos. 115, 130 and 157 of 1978.

(2.) At the hearing of the aforesaid Reference, a preliminary point was framed whether the domestic enquiries held against the petitioners were in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The learned Presiding Officer of the first Labour Court, Pune, perused the evidence placed before him in that regard and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were given full opportunity to defend themselves. However, according to him, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse and, therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated. This he did by his order dated 16th October, 1980. Thereafter he permitted the first respondent to lead further evidence to prove misconduct on the part of the Petitioner and justify the dismissal orders passed against them. The first respondent thus adduced further evidence in the Labour Court which was appreciated by the learned Labour Judge on the basis of the said additional evidence he came to the conclusion by the three impugned Awards that there was strike in the factory of the first respondent from 16.10.1976 which was illegal and that the petitioners had instigated and incited the said strike. In this context he held that the acts of the petitioners constituted misconduct and that there was justification for terminating their services. In the result, he held that the petitioners were not entitled to reinstatement as also the back wages and as such the References made in the matter of their reinstatement and continuity of services and back wages were rejected which Awards have been impugned by the petitioners jointly in this petition.

(3.) Now, it is to be seen that the preliminary point raised at the hearing before the learned Labour Judge was whether the domestic enquiries held against the petitioners were in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In order to ascertain that he appreciated the evidence recorded at the enquiry proceeding placed before him and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were given full opportunity to defend themselves. In other words, he held that the principles of natural justice were not violated at the domestic enquiries. The learned Labour Judges thereafter wrongly held that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse and, therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated. Once the learned Labour Judge was of the view that the petitioners were given full opportunity to defend themselves all that was necessary for him was to find out whether the charges levelled against the petitioners were proved and if so whether the punishment inflicted on them was in accordance with law and what relief could be given to the petitioners. It was totally wrong on the part of the learned Labour Judge to hold that the principles of natural justice were violated at the domestic enquiries because the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer were perverse. He was also wrong in giving opportunity to the first respondent to adduce further evidence to prove misconduct committed by the petitioners and to find out justification for the termination of their services. The entire approach of the learned Labour Judge in granting an opportunity to the first respondent to adduce further evidence after holding that the petitioners were given full opportunity to defend themselves at the domestic enquiries was bad in law. Consequently, the next step taken by the learned Labour Judge to read and appreciate the further evidence which he allowed the first respondent to adduce in his Court was a futile exercise and not in accordance with law. His conclusion, thereafter, on the basis of the evidence adduced before him, that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of services and back wages was also wrong. The impugned Awards rejecting the demands of the petitioners, in this view of the matter, will have to be set aside and the matter will have to be relegated to the stage of the learned Labour Judge holding that the domestic enquiries were in accordance with law since the petitioners were given full opportunity to defend themselves and will have to be remanded to the Labour Court for further proceeding after he had reached a conclusion that the domestic enquiries were held observing the principles of natural justice. He is then to read the evidence that was led before the Enquiry Officer and come to a conclusion whether the charges levelled against the petitioners were proved and if so, whether proper punishment was inflicted on them and if so if to what relief they would be entitled to.