V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) THE employer challenges the interim order passed by the labour court, Bangalore on ia-i. The worker, a driver working under the petitioner-bank, was dismissed from service after an alleged domestic enquiry held on 6-1-1983. The dismissal ended in a dispute and was referred to the labour court. The labour court raised preliminary issues on the validity of the domestic enquiry. It is admitted by both the parties that the labour court has held that there was no valid enquiry and the finding of the domestic enquiry was set aside on the ground that the enquiry was conducted vitiating the principles of natural justice. Subsequent thereto ia-i was filed by the worker for interim relief at the rate of 100% of the wages last drawn by him at the time of his dismissal. After hearing the respective counsel for the parties the labour court passed the following order : "the application is allowed. The second party is directed to either to reinstate the first party back into service and pay him the last drawn wages by him without extending any other benefits or to him 90% of the last drawn wages from the date of interim application pending disposal of this dispute. " The said order is challenged by the employer in this writ petition.

( 2 ) ONE of the contentions urged by the management at the outset is that there is a factual error in the order passed in that it has proceeded on the basis that the employer had not filed objections to the application. The employer's counsel had produced the copy of the objections filed before the labour court along with the writ petition and marked as Annexure c. After perusal of the Order, i feel that the omission on the part of the labour court to notice the objections filed by the employer has not in any way adversely affected the merits of the case. Therefore on this ground alone the order need not be set aside and remanded.

( 3 ) SRI prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the order on various grounds. According to him, if the order of dismissal is sustained finally on the basis of the evidence let in the doctrine of relation back will apply and the dismissal order will come into force from the date it was originally issued and if so, the worker will not be entitled to any backwages. In such an event, the payment of interim relief cannot also be sustained. He relied on the doctrine of the Supreme Court in P. H. Kalyani V. Air France, AIR 1963 SC 1756. He further contended that if the labour court ultimately justifies the dismissal order then it will be very difficult as well to recover the interim compensation paid to the worker by the interim order. He further submitted that if the dismissal of the worker is justified after adducing evidence the worker may not be entitled the very relief by way of backwages and hence and quantum awarded even if justified is excessive.

( 4 ) I am of the view that the above cited decision will not come to the aid of the petitioner. In that case the worker was dismissed from service after conducting an enquiry. According to the worker the domestic enquiry held was vitiated by bias. The labour court set aside the domestic enquiry holding that the same was vitiated. It may be seen from the judgment that this was not set aside solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court has adverted to this fact in para 6 of its judgment and has stated as follows :". . . . . . . . . ON the other hand it has been urged on behalf of the ress pondent that the station manager could not in the circumstance of this case be said to have violated tne principles of natural Justice because the mistakes were admitted by the appellant and the inquiry was really formal and all that the station manager had to do was to recommend what he considered suitable punishment for the misconduct, which had taken place. It is also pointed out that the actual punishment was awarded by the regional representative and not by the stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document