ALPHA TOYO LTD. Vs. SHRI SRI CHAND TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks quashing of order of the Labour Court dated 31.7.1995, annexure P-7.

(2.) Petitioner is a public limited company having registered office at Faridabad. Respondent No. 1 and employee of the Company challenged his order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority before the Labour Court, who after examining the various contentions raised by the respective parties finally came to the conclusion that in view of the decision of the apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL,. Hyderabad, v. B. Karunakar, 1994 1 SCT 319(SC) a delinquent employee is entitled to receive a copy of the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. Since in the instant case the enquiry report had not been furnished to the delinquent employee same deprives him of a reasonable opportunity of placing his view point before the disciplinary authority and so un-just. The Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was neither fair nor proper and so the same stands vitiated. Resultantly, the order of dismissal was set aside.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Labour Court has indeed erred in law in not properly construing the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the apex Court which has consequently resulted in failure of justice. According to the counsel even if it be taken that the report of the enquiry officer had not been furnished to the employee yet no prejudice had accrued to him and nor there is any finding by the Labour Court and so the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case ought to have further examined the effect of non-service of the enquiry report. As per the aforesaid judgment the Court or Tribunal is not to mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished. It is for the Courts Tribunals to apply their judicious mind to the question and give reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment. It is only if the Court or the Tribunal finds that the furnishing of report would have made a difference to the result in that case it should set aside the order of punishment. In fact setting aside of the order of punishment has certain consequential results leading to payment of back wages and other benefits from the date of dismissal of employee to his reinstatement in service. This fact has not been adverted to by the Labour Court. So, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Labour Court for a fresh adjudication in the light of the decision in Managing Director, ECIL's case .