1995 Supreme(Bom) 54

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B.N. Srikrishna, J.
Satish Ganesh Saphtarshi and others.... Petitioners.
Versus
M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. and another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 5846 of 1986, decided on 27/30-1-1995.
Advocates appeared :
Deshmukh for N.M.Ganguli, for the petitioners.
Sudhir Talsania, for Ms. Anjali Patil i/b Haresh Mehta and Co., for respondent No. 1.

Headnote:Section 10 (1) (c).

       See Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971-Section 26, Schedules IV, Item 1 (f).

       Section 26, Schedule IV, Item 1 (f)-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 10 (1) (c)-Scope of.

       Section 26 of the Act defines unfair labour practice to mean any of the practices listed in Schedule II, III and IV to the Act Section 28 enables the party complaining of unfair labour practices to move the appropriate Court for redressal. Section 30 of the Act empowers the Court to grant relief if it decides that any person named in the complaint has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labour practice.

       In the instant case, the petitioners had moved the Labour Court alleging that their dismissal from service amounted to unfair labour practice within the meaning of items 1 (a), (b), (c), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Act. For the purpose of the present case, court need consider only the provisions of clause (f) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act, which reads. To discharge or dismiss employees in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry or with undue haste.

       That there was disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the domestic inquiry is clear, but was it in utter disregard is the moot question. It is not possible to say that the addition of the adjective utter does not make any difference to the provision, as it is a cardinal cannon of interpretation is that the legislature must be presumed to have avoided redundancy surplus age of language and every word used In the statute must be given its due weight age in construing the statute. The adjective Utter is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary. Volume XI, (Reprint 1978), as under:

       "Going to the utmost point extreme, absolute, complete, entire, total."

       In view of this meaning ascribed to the objective Utter, it would appear that the Legislature intended that all times the due care and caution should be exercised by the employer in conducting the domestic inquiry and though a technical violation of the principles of natural justice, which was not obvious ab initio without a complicated process of reasoning might not fall within the ambit of clause (f) of Item I, a blatant disregard of obvious principles of natural justice would fall within the mischief of clause (f) of Item I of Schedule IV.

       The fact that the words with undue haste have also been used in the same clause supports the interpretation, namely, that the inquiry has been hustled through hastily, no regard being paid even to what should have been obvious to any reasonably instructed person dealing with the object.

       In the instant case, the delinquent employees had, right from the time of reply to the show-cause notice, requested for supply of the copies of statements/reports made by the witnesses, on which the charges were based. For unfathomable reasons, their request was consistently refused. When the request was reiterated before the Inquiry Officer, it was accepted by him as reasonably necessary for the petitioners to effectively cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the charges, and resulted in an resulted in order to the first respondent to supply copies of such statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation.

       Despite the order of the Inquiry Officer, the first respondent took a rigid stand that as it did not propose to rely on the contents of the reports/ complaints made by witnesses prior to the show-cause notice, it was not obliged to supply copies thereof to the delinquent employees. There was, thus, a conscious refusal to comply with what should have been the basic requirement of principles of natural justice, during the inquiry.

       In the circumstances, Court is of the view that this amounted to utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the domestic inquiry and also an unfair labour practice falling within the ambit of Item 1 (f) of Schedule IV. The Labour Court held that misdirected itself in holding that no unfair labour practice made out. The Writ Petitioners must succeed to that extent.

       On the state of the record as it stands the High Court has an inquiry which is vitiated for non-compliance with an elementary principle of natural justice resulting in denial of a fair opportunity of cross-examination to the delinquents. The evidence recorded therein cannot be relied upon for establishing the guilty, or otherwise, of the delinquent employees. Unfortunately, apart from the inquiry documents, no further evidence was led before the Labour Court, either on the merits of the charge against the petitioners, or on the case of victimisation alleged by them.

       The result is that, despite a finding of unfair labour practice this Court is not in a position to take view either way and hold that either the guilt of the employee or the allegation of victimisation has been broved or disproved on the material on record. In these circumstances held that an opportunity needs to be given to both sides to establish their respective cases by leading appropriate evidence before the Labour Court, so that the Labour Court may, after appraisal of such evidence, come to a decision as to what relief, if any, needs to be given to the complainants before.