RAMESH KUMAR PATEL Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged order dated 23.8.2011 and order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Jabalpur in case No. 126/05/ IDR by which the Labour Court while declaring the departmental enquiry as illegal, directed the respondents herein to lead evidence in respect of misconduct on the part of the petitioner and by subsequent order allowed an application seeking amendment to the similar affect. These orders are challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds

(2.) We have heard the parties.

(3.) Facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was an employee of the respondents M/S Sahara India Pariwar. There were certain allegations against the petitioner in respect of short time embezzlement of money leading a departmental enquiry and after departmental enquiry the petitioner's services were terminated by the respondents. The petitioner sought a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the competent government referred the matter to the Labour Court for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner herein submitted his statement of case and the respondents also filed reply of the claim raised by the petitioner. The Labour Court framed the issues and while deciding issue No. 1 in respect of departmental enquiry, the Labour Court by an order dated 23.8.2011 found that the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner by the respondents was bad in law. While passing such an order, the Labour Court on the same day permitted the respondents to lead evidence in respect of misconduct of the petitioner and for this purpose the case was adjourned for 30.9.2011. On 30.9.2011, petitioner herein moved an application for passing an award as the departmental enquiry was held to be illegal. The respondents also moved an application seeking review of the earlier order. For consideration of these applications, case was adjourned for 16.11.2011. On 16.11.2011 another application for amendment was filed. The Labour Court firstly considered the application seeking amendment in the reply and allowed the same. The petitioner herein, because of allowing the amendment application, had not pressed his application accordingly it was rejected and the case was adjourned for recording evidence in respect of misconduct of the petitioner. This order is under challenge in this petition.