THE MANAGEMENT OF MUTTUCK TEA ESTATE Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ASSAM AT DIBRUGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an award dated 10.9.76 of the Labour Court of Assam at Dibrugarh.

(2.) Facts of the case may shortly be stated. The manager of the Muttuck Tea Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "management") charged the workman Panchooram that on 20.12.69 the workman assaulted Head Tea House Babu Manindra Mohon Bose committing thereby an act of gross misconduct under the Standing Orders. The workman was served with the charge and was asked to submit his explanation. The workman submitted explanation denying the charge. A domestic enquiry was held. On 21.1.70 the Enquiry Officer recorded his findings holding that the charges had been proved. Thereafter, the workman was dismissed from his services with effect from 3.4.72. The Union raised an industrial dispute, and the Government referred their industrial dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court of Assam at Dibrugarh. The Labour Court heard on the question whether the domestic enquiry was vitiated or valid, as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court decided the preliminary issue holding that the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer was perverse as he had not given any reason for coming to his conclusion and also for discarding the defence evidence. The Labour Court relied on the decision in Khardah & Co. Vs. The Workmen, AIR 1964 SC 719: 1962-II LLJ 452 , in which the Supreme Court has held that the Enquiry Officer need not write a very long or elaborate report, but, since his findings are likely to lead to the dismissal of the employee, it is his duty to record clearly and precisely his conclusions and to indicate briefly his reasons for reaching the conclusions. After deciding that the domestic enquiry was defective, the Labour Court proceeded with the reference for deciding it on merits. Parties were allowed to adduce evidence. The Labour Court considered the evidence and materials on record and held that the dismissal was not justified and the workman was ordered to be reinstated with the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement by an award dated 10.9.76. Hence this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Horn Choudhury, has contended that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to direct the parties to produce evidence to decide the reference on merits, after the Labour Court has, while deciding the preliminary issue, held that the Enquiry Officer gave reasonable opportunity to the workman to cross-examine the witnesses of the management and to adduce his own evidence ; and the workman participated fully in enquiry ; and there was no proof of want of good faith on the part of the management ; and it was not a case of victimisation.