U K SAHOO Vs. PRESIDING PFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A subtle but interesting question arises in this batch of writ petitions. Whether the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court is required to decide as a preliminary issue, the question regarding the validity/fairness of the domestic enquiry in pursuance of which a punitive dismissal order has been passed against the workman? Short facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are that the opposite parties were working as Mazdoor of the petitioner. On 22.4.2006, it is alleged that while working in the Dungri Lime Stone Quarry of ACC Cement Ltd., they indulged in disruptive activities which amounted to misconduct. So explanation was called for from them. Not finding explanation to be satisfactory, disciplinary actions were initiated and after due enquiry they are found guilty as alleged. Thereafter, 2nd show-cause notices were issued. Causes shown were found unsatisfactory. Thereafter, as a disciplinary measure, the management imposed punishment for their dismissal from service. On being aggrieved by such order of dismissal, the opposite parties raised industrial dispute which cumulated in reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, hereinafter referred to as the CGIT for brevity. Thereafter, the parties appeared before the CGIT and put in their pleadings. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were casts by the CGIT:

(2.) The petitioner-management in its written statement took up the plea that since the workmen have challenged the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the question of fairness of domestic enquiry be decided as a preliminary issue, and in case the Tribunal finds any frailty in the enquiry, the petitioner be granted opportunity to establish the charges against the opposite parties-workmen. Such a prayer was made as an alternative plea and not as an admission of illegality in the domestic enquiry.

(3.) An application was also filed by the petitioner to decide it as a preliminary issue. While the learned Presiding Officer, CGIT, Bhubaneswar disposed of this petition to take up issue No. 1 as preliminary issue on 1.6.2011, it held that the proceedings are of summary nature and there is a catena of judgments of the issues in such a proceeding shall be heard and decided at the final stage after taking evidence of the parties at one stage and the same time. Thus, the CGIT rejected the application filed by the management. Such order has been assailed in these-writ petitions.