JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---Respondent No. 1 Heramb Bhaskar Sahasrabuddhe was served with a charge-sheet dated 1-11-1980 for the role he had played during Gherav on 13-10-1980. The employee denied the charges levelled against him and thereafter an inquiry was conducted. Since the employee did not co-operate, the inquiry was held ex parte and by an order dated 2-12-1980 he came to be dismissed from service. Respondent employee with 20 other workmen was also prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli for offences under section 147 and 241 of the I.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli by his order dated 30th January, 1984 acquitted all the accused, including the respondent employee, by giving them a benefit of doubt. On or about 5th December, 1980 respondent No. 1 employee raised an industrial dispute asking for reinstatement in service. After failure of the conciliation proceedings the Government of Maharashtra referred the dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Kolhapur. The said reference was registered as IDA No. 151 of 1981. It was then transferred to the 2nd Labour Court, Sangli and was registered as Reference No. IDA 20 of 1981. The respondent filed a statement of claim on 8th June, 1982 in which he contended that the inquiry held against him was in breach of the principles of natural justice and his removal from service was only meant to victimise him for his legitimate trade union activity. The petitioner Company by its written statement controverted the case made out by the employee and contended that the domestic inquiry held was perfectly legal and valid. A contention was also raise before the Labour Court that in view of his acquittal by the competent Criminal Court the inquiry held and the order passed is wholly vitiated. The Labour Court vide order dated 17 December, 1984 held that the inquiry held was improper and illegal as sufficient opportunity was not given to the employee to put forward his case. By the same order the Labour Court directed that the parties would be given an opportunity to lead evidence on merits of the charges.

2. When the matter again came for hearing before the Labour Court the respondent employee insisted that it was necessary for the Court to pass a specific order with regard to the contention raised by him based on the principles of res judicata or issue-estoppel.

3. After hearing the arguments the Labour Court by its order dated 14th March, 1985 took the view that since all the relevant witnesses had been examined in the Criminal Court and their evidence is also thoroughly scrutinised. It would be sufficient that certified copies of the evidence recorded in the Criminal Court are filed in the reference and on that basis the matter could be decided.

4. On 29th of October, 1985 the petitioner Company filed an application that it should be given an opportunity to examine the witnesses in support of the charges levelled against the employee.

5. The Labour Court refuse to grant the permission by taking a view that fresh evidence need not be recorded in the matter. It is these orders which are challenged in this writ petition.

6. Shri Shrikrishna learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before us that the Labour Court committed an error in holding that no fresh evidence could be led in the matter to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner in view of his acquittal by a competent Criminal Court.

7. Though no reference is made to the decision of this Court is (Jeevanprakash v. State Bank of India)1, 1983 Mh.L.J. 508, it appears that in view of the said decision the labour Court came to the conclusion that since the departmental inquiry itself is not permissible in view of the acquittal of the employee, such evidence is not necessary. It is contended by Shri Shrikrishna that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Jeevanprakash's case is no more good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in (Corporation of Nagpu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document