IFGL REFRACTORIES Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,ROURKELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INDUSTRIAL Tribunal, Rourkela passed an order on 9.5.2000 in I.D. Case No. 25 of 1999 (State) calling upon the Management to lead evidence to prove that the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper. Being felt aggrieved by the said direction, the Management has filed this writ petition.

(2.) THE Government of Orissa in Labour and Employment Department order No. 6805/LE dated 20.5.1999 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12(5) read with clause -(d) of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela : "Whether the action of the vice -President (Works) of M/s. I.F.G.L. Refractories Ltd., Kalunga Industrial Estate, Kalunga Industrial Estate, Kalunga, Dist -Sundargarh in dismissing Sri Negi Kishan, Workman Emp. No. 6K -72 from services with effect from 15.11.97 is legal and or justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled to -

(3.) SHRI Mohanty submitted that the Tribunal having not decided the question relating to the fairness of the domestic inquiry erred in law in directing the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of its case that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper. In this connection, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Neeta Kapilsh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, AIR 1999 S.C. 698. On perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court it appears that the Labour Court in that case came to the conclusion that the inquiry conducted by the Management was not fair and proper and it called upon the Management to produce its evidence on merit. The Management did not lead evidence but produced only one witness whose evidence was of formal nature. Since the Management did not produce any evidence on merit, the workman also did not produce any evidence. The Labour Court accordingly dismissed the claim of the workman. The Supreme Court observed that having regard to the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the domestic inquiry was not properly and fairly held and an effective opportunity of hearing was not given to the workman, the Labour Court was right in calling upon the Management to lead fresh evidence, but the management did not lead any fresh evidence on merit. The Supreme Court accordingly held that for that reason the claim of the workman cannot be rejected and observed rather the claimant is entitled to be granted relief then and there. The Court, however, remained the case back to the Labour Court to decide the case afresh after requiring the parties to lead fresh evidence on merit.