CAPSTAN METERS INDIA LTD Vs. JUDGE LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS a writ petition by Capstan Meters (India) Ltd. , under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated December 6, 1988 passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur holding that the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 was against the principles of natural justice on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was not a person competent to hold enquiry in accordance with Standing Orders of the petitioner.

(2.) FACTS leading to this writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act with its workshop and office at Tonk Road, Jaipur and it is engaged in manufacturing of meters. Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were employed as workmen in the petitioner Company. On May 18, 1985, individual charge-sheets were served upon respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The charges against all these respondents, broadly, were that on May 17, 1985 at about 9. 30 a. m. these respondents along with some other workmen entered into the office of the Manager of the Company, misbehaved with him and abused him. They also assaulted the Manager alongwith Ram Swaroop, Shrimal and Sohan Lal. This according to the Standing Orders of the Company, amounted to serious misdemeanour. Shri. A. B. L. Bhargava, Advocate, was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the petitioner. He held domestic enquiry and gave his report on April 7, 1986. Finding all the three respondents guilty of the charges, the Management of the petitioner Company accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and after considering the matter had decided to terminate their services with effect from April 15, 1986. Capstan Meters Mazdoor Union (respondent No. 2) raised an industrial dispute with respect to the termination of service of the above three workmen and the dispute was referred by the State Government under Section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, for short, "the Act") to the Court of Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur. The Judge, Labour Court heard both the sides on the question as to whether the domestic enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Management was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. By his order dated December 8, 1988 (Annex. 1), the Judge, Labour Court held that the enquiry was not fair on the ground that the officer appointed to hold enquiry was not an officer of the petitioner Company but was an Advocate. This according to the Judge, Labour Court, was against the Standing Orders and also violated the principles of natural justice. This order has been attacked by the petitioner Company by this writ petition.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was not obligatory for the Company only to appoint an officer in its employment as Enquiry Officer to hold the aforesaid enquiry. It could appoint even an outsider, including an Advocate, for the purpose. It was also urged that merely because the Enquiry Officer was an Advocate, it could by no stretch be said that the enquiry was not fair or was violative of the principles of natural justice. Lastly it was urged that respondent Nos. 3 and 5 having participated in the enquiry, they are estopped from challenging the appointment of Shri A. B. L. Bhargava as Enquiry officer.