LAWS(APH)-2008-8-32

G P BABU Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

Decided On August 26, 2008
G.P.BABU, DANIAL Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Bapatla Depot of a. P. S. R. T. C. He was removed from service by the Depot Manager, Bapatla, 2nd respondent herein (for short 'the respondent'), on disciplinary grounds. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Guntur, by filing i. D. No. 276 of 2006 under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act' ). At his instance, the Labour Court has taken up the question of validity of the domestic enquiry, as preliminary issue. The petitioner pleaded that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a defective manner and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent contested the matter. Through its order, dated 01. 03. 2007, the Labour Court answered the said issue in affirmative and held that the domestic enquiry is valid and binding on both the parties. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent.

(3.) THE petitioner approached the Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Act, aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent, removing him from service. It is quite strange that the petitioner, who invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, had insisted that the question, as to the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry, be decided. Normally, it is the contesting respondents in the proceedings before a Court or Forum, that would raise several issues opposing the claim of the persons, who instituted the proceedings. Preliminary issue is the one; the answer to which in a particular form, would terminate the proceedings, without the necessity to deal with the other aspects of the matter. Invariably, such issues are raised by the defending parties. It is uncommon that a party, who invokes the jurisdiction of a Forum or Court, would insist on the answer to a preliminary issue. Therefore, it was impermissible for the petitioner, to insist on the adjudication of a preliminary issue.