LEADER ENGG WORKS PROP LEADER VALVES PVT LTD , JALANDHAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, JALANDHAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the award dated 10.07.1995 (Annexure-P-8), vide which the reference has been answered in favour of the workman, holding him entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and with full back wages and all ensuing benefits.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that while framing issues on 28.08.1990, the Labour Court had only framed one issue which was taken as a preliminary issue which reads as follows "Whether domestic inquiry conducted against the workman is fair and proper". He contends that on the basis of said issue framed, the Labour Court proceeded to record the evidence and thereafter, gave its findings. He contends that there was no occasion for the Management to claim opportunity to produce evidence in the Court to sustain the charges levelled against the workman as there was no issue framed with regard to the relief or with regard to termination of the workman being in consonance with law. He submits that even the findings which have been recorded by the Labour Court on the issue referred to above, are not sustainable for the reason that only ground taken for giving such a finding that the inquiry was vitiated was (i) that Shri K.L. Jain was the retainer of the respondent-management and he being the legal advisor could not have been appointed as inquiry officer (ii) that the address on which the letter dated 31.08.1995/01.09.1995 was issued to the workman, did not specify the number of the house where the letter was to reach. The Labour Court had only proceeded on the assumptions that the said letter was not received by the workman. He submits that the workman with his reply to the writ petition has attached a letter dated 08.09.1995 (Annexure-R-2/2) wherein he had submitted the reply to the letter dated 01.09.1995. This clearly show that the letter which was addressed to the workman had been received by him and, therefore, had responded thereto. On this basis he contends that the findings as recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained and, therefore, being contrary to the evidence on record which are documentary in nature, the same cannot be sustained and the same stands vitiated. He further contends that opportunity should be granted to the Management to prove the charges levelled against the workman in case the inquiry is said to be vitiated.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-workman contends that the Labour Court has rightly framed the issue with regard to inquiry proceedings being fair and proper and on the basis of evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court has given its finding, which do not call for any interference by this Court. He submits that appropriate stage at which the Management was required to make the claim with regard to opportunity to produce evidence to justify the order of termination in case the inquiry proceedings were vitiated was, at the stage of leading evidence before the Labour Court when the preliminary issue was being decided by the Labour Court. He further contends that having not done so, the Management cannot be now granted an opportunity to proceed and prove the charges against the workman. He further contends that no interference in the present award may be made for the reason that the Labour Court has on the basis of pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, passed the award.