SUBBA LAKSHMI Vs. HONBLE LABOUR COURT III HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 management.

(2.) The question herein which has found a pronouncement against the employee in the writ petition is that in case the employee through his Advocate concedes that no objection is taken as to the validity of the domestic enquiry later the employee cannot ask the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal before which the industrial dispute is pending adjudication, to lead evidence to show that domestic enquiry was invalid. We had the occasion to deal with a reverse case in which the employer wanted to lead evidence after such a concession by the learned Counsel for the employee and to consider the scope of Section III-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). In Writ Appeal No. 918 of 1995 after considering various pronouncements of the Supreme Court, we have held in our judgment that it is the duty of the Court or the Tribunal to decide whether domestic enquiry is valid or not and it does not depend upon the party appearing before it to ask for a decision on the question of the validity of the domestic enquiry. The Supreme Court in Workman of F. T, & R. Co. v. The Management (1973-I-LLJ-278) a considered the scope of Section II-A of the Act and the principles broadly emerging from the said judgment are summarised by us in our judgment in Writ Appeal No. 918 of 1995. The Supreme Court has said in the said judgment that the Act a beneficial piece of legislation enacted in the interests of employees and it demands an interpretation liberal enough to achieve the legislative purpose. The Supreme Court has pointed out that the stage for interference under Section II-A by the Tribunal is not reached only when it has to consider the punishment after having accepted the findings of guilt recorded by the employer and that the proviso does not specify matters which the Tribunal shall take into account as also matters which it shall not. The expression "materials on record" occurring in the proviso cannot be confined only to the materials which were available at the domestic enquiry.

(3.) In view of the above, we find no reason to restrict the demand of the employee for evidence to show that his defence has been prejudiced in the domestic enquiry only at the stage of the Court or Tribunal considering whether the domestic enquiry is valid or invalid. The employee can make such a demand at any stage of the proceeding and can bring on the record evidence to show that defence has been prejudiced in recording the finding of guilt in the domestic enquiry as well as in the imposition of punishment.