V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE management of Glaxo India Limited, Madras is the petitioner herein. It filed this writ petition seeking issue of a writ of mandamus restraining the 1st respondent from proceeding with the Industrial Dispute No. 441 of the 1989 and to pass such other orders as deemed fit.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner-company is a registered Company under the Companies Act having its registered office at Bombay. The Branch offices among other places are at Bombay, Madras, Vijayawada, etc. Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of food, pharmaceuticals, aggrovat and animal health products. The 2nd respondent was a whole time employee of the petitioner-company, and is forbidden from contracting employment elsewhere so long as he continues in the employment of the petitioner, in any capacity whatsoever. During the period of his employment, 2nd respondent obtained employment in Jindal Aluminium Limited, Bangalore. He has been working with the said company and at the same time continuing to be in service of the petitioner-Company and drawing salary. He was applying for leave very often. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service on the ground that he has taken up employment elsewhere while he is and has been an employee of the petitioner-Company. Thus, he violated the terms of his appointment and rules and regulations of the Company. Added to it, his dismissal order was also on the ground that he has drawn excessive amounts towards medical bill. On these two charges a domestic enquiry was conducted. In the said domestic enquiry, he was found guilty and he was dismissed from service in consequence thereof.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent then approached the Labour Court and raised an industrial dispute. Before the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent contended that the domestic enquiry is vitiated as the same was held against the principles of natural justice, viz. , that the charge-sheet filed against him does not contain all the allegation, that the Presenting Officer on behalf of the Management appeared as a witness in the industrial dispute which is a violation and that the authors of certain documents which were exhibited, were not examined. He also contended before the lower Court that the said domestic enquiry was not conducted at Vijayawada and it was conducted for two days at Vijayawada and for two days a Madras whereby he was not in a position to engage an Advocate which ultimately resulted in grave prejudice to him, and that therefore, the enquiry report has to be set aside and fresh opportunity has to be given to him.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the Management contended before the Labour Court that all necessary copies of documents were made available to the workman, that one P. V. Koteswararao who acted as a witness for the 2nd charge acted as a presenting Officer, but the same did not cause any prejudice to the 2nd respondent, that in the claim statement filed by the workman, the contention now raised at the time of arguments has not been raised, that with the consent of workman only, the enquiry was conducted at Vijayawada and Madras, that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to domestic enquiries and at any rate, the workman did not explain the nature of prejudice that was caused to him for any violation whatsoever and that therefore, the enquiry is not hit by any principles of natural justice and is quite valid.

( 5 ) AFTER considering the rival contentions of the workman and the Management, the Labour Court accepted the contentions of the workman and held that since principles of natural justice have not been followed in the two domestic enquiries held against the workman, the same are not fair and proper and accordingly, set aside the enquiry reports and directed the Management to prove the charges afresh, before it.

( 6 ) CHALLENGING the said award, the Management filed this writ petition. Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, a senior counsel, argued on behalf of the Management,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document