RAJESH SHUKLA Vs. MEMBER JUDGE STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexurep/ 12 dated January 17, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal No. 82/99/mpir filed by the Respondent No. 3 and Cross Appeal No. 170/99/mpir filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the termination of his service before the Labour Court, Sagar and the Labour Court by its order dated February 27, 1999 had directed his reinstatement but without back wages. Against the said order of the Labour Court, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had preferred an appeal in which Cross Appeal for claiming back wages was also filed by the petitioner. The Industrial Court by the said impugned order Annexurep/ 12, directed remand of the case to the Labour Court for decision afresh after holding that the domestic enquiry was illegal. Since the case was remanded for decision afresh, the Cross Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Against the said judgment, the Respondent No. 4 has also filed a petition W. P. No. 1762/2000 on the ground that since the Labour Court had by its order dated January 21, 1999 already held the domestic enquiry to be valid, it could not have reviewed the said order while deciding the case finally and proceeded on the ground, in the order dated February 27, 1999, that the domestic enquiry was illegal. Both these petitions arc, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) SHRI A. G. Dhande appearing for the petitioner in W. P. No. 1599/2000, has pointed out that although the Industrial Court has remanded the case to the Labour Court after recording a clear finding that the domestic enquiry was illegal and has directed the Labour Court to grant opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, the order of the reinstatement in service passed by the Labour Court as such has not been set aside with the result, during the pendency of the case before the Labour Court, the Respondent employer is under a legal duty to comply with the requirement of Sub-section (3) of Section 65, of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Learned counsel for the Respondents, per contra, has pointed out that the entire case has been sent back to the Labour Court after recording a finding that the domestic enquiry was illegal with a direction to the Labour Court for adjudication afresh and it is not a case where the case has been remanded to the Labour Court for the limited purpose of recording the evidence and returning the findings to the Industrial Court.

(3.) SINCE both the appeals have been decided and the Industrial Court has given clear direction to the Labour Court to decide the case afresh after recording the evidence, it is clear that in so far as the earlier decision of the Labour Court which was challenged before the Industrial Court is concerned, the same has been set aside. Consequently, it cannot be said that in the absence of a specific recital to that effect in the order of the Industrial Court, the direction for reinstatement of the employee still subsists. There is thus, no substance in the argument of the learned counsel that since the Industrial Court has not specifically stated that the direction for reinstatement stands set aside, the direction subsists and the Respondents are required to comply with the provisions of Section 65 (3 ). Since the entire case has been remanded to the Labour Court to proceed from the stage of declaration of the domestic enquiry as illegal, it follows that the appeal of the Respondents against the said order to that extent has been allowed and thus, clearly implies that the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner has been set aside. I am unable to read the order of the Industrial Court in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner as it is preposterous to visualize a situation where with the final finding retained, the Labour Court would be called upon to adjudicate afresh whether the termination was proper. It is true that the Industrial Court has not specifically set aside the finding but the fact that it has directed the Labour Court to give opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence to prove the misconduct after holding the domestic enquiry to be illegal, itself has the effect of relegating the matter to the stage anterior to the Award of the Labour Court.