When a domestic enquiry is held to be bad, fresh evidence needs to be adduced and documents from the previous enquiry should be brought on record afresh in accordance with the law by examining necessary witnesses.

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

The award of the Labour Court, Gulbarga in KID No. 64/2002 rejecting the reference is called in question in this writ petition. The records reveal that the bus which was being conducted by the petitioner on 08.02.1989 plying between Poone to Ghanagapura was checked by the staff of Road Transport Corporation at Zalki Stage No. 23/24. There were 49 adult passengers and 5 children passengers in the bus. Among them, petitioner/claimant had not issued tickets to 9 adult passengers and five children passengers travelling from Nathpole Stage No. 49 to Ghanagapur Stage No. 8 despite collecting fare amount of Rs. 31/- from each of the adult passengers and Rs. 15.50/- from each of the minor passengers. The enquiry came to be conducted against the petitioner and he was dismissed from service.

2. Application came to be filed by the petitioner u/s 10(4-a) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 raising individual industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act against the order of the management dated 28.01.2002 dismissing the workman from employment. The Labour Court upon holding that the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner was not fair and proper and proceeded to enquire itself. While making such enquiry, the Law Officer of Corporation namely Sri S.D. Bhavikatti was examined as M.W. 1 as the only witness for management. It is relevant to note that Sri S.D. Bhavikatti was Presenting Officer/Law Officer, in Gulbarga Division during the domestic enquiry in default case No. 226/1989 against the petitioner. In other words, the Presenting Officer before the domestic enquiry is examined as an witness of management before the Labour Court during the course of fresh enquiry. M.W. 1 namely S.D. Bhavikatti has deposed about the documents already produced before the domestic enquiry which was set aside by the Labour Court, though he did not have personal knowledge about the happenings at the time of inspection and subsequent thereto. The Labour Court based on the evidence of M.W. 1 confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority.

3. Once the domestic enquiry is held to be bad in the eye of law by the Labour Court, fresh evidence needs to be adduced. The documents and other material on record which were marked at the first instance during the domestic enquiry which is held to be bad in the eye of law should be brought on record afresh in accordance with law by examining necessary witnesses. In the matter on hand, none of the Corporation employees are examined. On the other hand, the Law Officer of the Corporation who was the Presenting Officer on behalf of the Corporation in the domestic enquiry is examined as M.W. 1. He did not have any personal knowledge about the search etc., made during the relevant point of time. Moreover, he could not have deposed supporting the documents which are already on record since the domestic enquiry was set aside. The documents which were earlier produced could not have made use of by the Labour Court unless they are brought on record before the Labour Court as per law by examining the relevant witnesses. The Corporation did not choose to lead evidence of any of the workers of the Corporation who are having knowledge about the search of the bus during the relevant point of time.

4. The incident is of 08.02.1989. We are in the year 2014. Already 25 years have lapsed. Despite sufficient opportunities, the Corporation is not interested to pursue the matter in accordance with law. Be that as it may, since the procedure adopted by the Labour Court while passing the impugned award is bad in the eye of law, the award of the Labour Court needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the same stands set aside. Consequently, the order of dismissal of the employee also stands set aside. Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement however, without back wages since the petitioner has not -6-worked since 2002. Accordingly, the following order is made:

The writ petition