TORRENT PHARMACEUTICAL LTD. Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order of the Labour Court dated 04.04.012 whereby Labour Court has decided the question of validity of domestic enquiry against the petitioner / employer.

(2.) Shri D.K. Katare, Advocate for the petitioner, assailed this order by contending that workman was appointed by issuing an appointment order. Workman has admitted before the Labour Court that he is signatory to the contract of appointment and said appointment order contains a condition that in the event any dispute arises between the parties, it will be entertained within the territorial jurisdiction of Ahmedabad. In view of this condition of the appointment order, which was duly admitted by the workman, the Labour Court Gwalior had no authority, jurisdiction and competence to even decide this aspect. He submits that Labour Court should have decided the issue No.1 at the threshold and only after deciding issue of jurisdiction in favour of the workman it could have proceeded with the matter. In addition, it is submitted that Labour Court has erred in holding domestic enquiry as illegal. By taking this Court to inquiry report, it is argued that workman was afforded opportunity to participate in the enquiry but he on his own did not participate in the same. Thus, principle of natural justice were not violated and Labour Court had no occasion to interfere in the domestic enquiry. Reliance is placed on (State Bank of India Vs. Hemant Kumar, 2011 11 SCC 355 ), (G.P. Dewangon Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., 2010 4 MPLJ 327). It is submitted that jurisdiction can be assumed by consent of parties. To bolster this submission, reliance is placed on (New Moga Transport Co. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2004 4 SCC 677).

(3.) Per Contra, Shri B.S. Bais, learned counsel for the workman submits that before passing the impugned order, a detailed order dated 04.01.2010 was passed, whereby Labour Court opined that question of jurisdiction will be decided along with other issues. The petitioner has not challenged this order and therefore, it has attained finality. He submits that jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and no interference is warranted against the decision on issue No.1. By placing reliance on ( The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. P.P. Mundhe, 1975 AIR(SC) 1900), it is submitted that in view of this judgment, the Labour Court has not committed any error in deciding the question of domestic enquiry as issue No.1. No interference is warranted in view of this judgment. Reliance is also place on unreported judgment of Division Bench dated 09.08.2010 passed in WP No. 7962/2010.