INDER PARSAD Vs. FRICK INDIA LIMITED AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 7.9.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 12517 of 2000. According to the learned Single Judge a domestic inquiry was instituted on the charges that the workman stopped staff members, namely, Mr. S.N. Pal, General Manager, and Mr. Manohar Lal and other officers from entering the factory on 22.7.1988 when there was a gate meeting of the workers outside the factory. The further allegation was that he used foul language and caused physical assault on both officers. It was alleged that on 27.3.1989, the workman-appellant had come to the factory to participate in a domestic inquiry held against him. As the Enquiry Officer had not arrived, he was loitering inside the factory and misbehaved with the Security Officer Mr. Kartar Singh by catching hold of his neck with both hands and strangulating him. One Mr. Roop Singh was the eye-witness to the incident. The Labour Court found that the inquiry had not been held properly nor it was fair. The management sought to prove the misconduct by seeking to amend the written reply by bringing on record more facts and also proving the misconduct by evidence before the Labour Court.

(2.) The learned Single Judge rejected the argument of the appellant that the Labour Court was unjustified in conducting inquiry in two stages and allowing the management to improve its version by permitting it to amend the written statement. The basic reason for rejection of the argument is that it should be the endeavour of the Labour Court not to take up the case in piecemeal as regard the propriety and legality of the inquiry. In that regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of The Workmen of Firestone Tyre Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and Ors., 1973 1 SCC 813 The learned Single Judge as also the Labour Court rejected the argument of the workman that amendment of pleadings by the management should not be permitted when they added four aspects, namely, (i) No demand notice had been given prior to conciliation; (ii) The management had lost its confidence in the workman and had offered a cheque of Rs. 8308.35 for notice pay and retrenchment compensation; (iii) the workman had been profitably employed on higher salary; and (iv) his past conduct had been one of recurrent trouble making and compensation alone would be appropriate relief even if the discharge was found to be harsh or improper.

(3.) The learned Single Judge opined that the workman cannot feel prejudiced in any manner by such a exercise because the Labour Court while exercising power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the Act'), was entitled to look into the past record. In that regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Utam Manohar Nakate, 2005 2 SCC 489