VOLTAS LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-management against the order of the labour Court whereunder the order of dismissal passed by the appellant-management against the 2nd respondent-employee has been set aside and directed reinstatement of the employee in service with full back wages and other attendant benefits, however, with an opportunity to the management to lead further evidence in the matter in support of its decision of imposing punishment as against the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent has been proceeded in a disciplinary proceeding on the charge that he assaulted a co-worker and the domestic enquiry resulted in his dismissal from service which was challenged before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, on a consideration of the material on record, come to the conclusion that principles of natural justice were violated during the course of enquiry, the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the delinquent before his explanation was called for with respect to the proposed punishment, the co-employee of the management was not present on the date when the matter was posted for enquiry and the Enquiry Officer instead of granting an opportunity to the respondent, proceeded with the enquiry without granting any adjournment, the workman was deprived of the assistance of an advocate as desired by him as well as the assistance of a co- employee and it was conducted by the Enquiry Officer himself. However, the Labour Court has granted opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence afresh in order to prove the charge against the delinquent. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that these findings are findings of fact arrived at by the Labour Court and do not suffer from any infirmity and accordingly declined to interfere in the matter. The appellant has impugned the said order in these proceedings.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that no request for assistance of a co-owner or a union leader was made by the respondent-employee and the employee wanted an observer which was agreed to by the Enquiry Officer. Thus, the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that assistance of a co-owner was denied to the employee which violated the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. It is submitted that a copy of the findings though on facts was served in the present case along with the proposed punishment, yet, the same cannot be set aside even if the copy of the enquiry report was not served on the respondent unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his contention relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Managing Director ECU, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, 1994 (1) LLJ 162. At this stage, we may hasten to add that the learned single Judge observed that since no final order has been passed against the appellant, consequently, the order does not call for any interference at the ad interim stage. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the question whether the respondent is a workman or not should be decided as a preliminary issue before going into the merits.