BANK OF BARODA Vs. G SRIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal appeared on board for hearing on 18.9.2002 when neither the first respondent nor his Counsel was present. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, the case was adjourned as part-heard in order to give an opportunity to the first respondent's Counsel to make his submissions. Thereafter, the writ appeal was posted as part-heard on 19.9.2002 and at the request of the learned Counsel for the first respondent, the case was adjourned by a week. Accordingly, the case is listed in today's list as part-heard. Even today, at the time of hearing, none appeared nor any representation was made on behalf of the first respondent. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, we do not find any justification to suo motu adjourn the case. In the circumstances, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.

(2.) This writ appeal is by the Management of Bank of Baroda and is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 25.9.1998 in WP No.26540 of 1998. In the above writ petition, the Management had assailed the validity of the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam (for short 'Industrial Court') dated 31.8.1998 in IA No. 195 of 1998 in ITID (C) No.7 of 1995 permitting the first respondent-workman to lead evidence before it in the purported exercise of power under the proviso to Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes, 1947 (for short 'Act').

(3.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was specifically cqntended that after the institution of the industrial dispute in the Industry Court by the respondent-workman, a preliminary issue regarding validity of the domestic inquiry held by the Management of Bank of Baroda was disposed of by the Industrial Court by an order dated 16.7.1998 holding that domestic inquiry held by the Management was valid and legal. It is relevant to notice that in that inquiry, the first respondent- workman had specifically pleaded that his admission was obtained 'on the false promise of amnesty'. In other words, what the delinquent-workman contended before the Industrial Court was that his admission was not voluntary and it was secured by playing fraud upon him by the Management. The learned industrial Judge has specifically adverted to this plea of delinquent-workman and rejected that plea as untenable and unmerited in his order dated 16.7.1998 and held that the inquiry conducted by the management is valid. However, in the impugned order, the learned industrial Judge allowed the application permitting the delinquent-workman to lead evidence in the purported exercise of power under the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act placing reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ch. Subba Lakshmi v. Labour Court-Ill, Hyderabad, 1996 (1) ALD 517 (DB).