The employer's right to adduce evidence arises only if it is reserved while filing the written statement and cannot be claimed as a matter of right after the Labour Court arrives at a conclusion about the Domestic Enquiry being vitiated.

Headnote:
Labour Court - Domestic Enquiry - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - [ULP] - [152/1995, 138/1995, 134/1995, 153/1995, 135/1995] - The court discussed the right of the employer to adduce evidence in case the Domestic Enquiry is held to be vitiated for non-compliance with the rules of natural justice or for perversity. It emphasized that the employer's right to adduce evidence arises only if it is reserved while filing the written statement and cannot be claimed as a matter of right after the Labour Court arrives at a conclusion about the Domestic Enquiry being vitiated. The court also highlighted the duty of the Court to frame issues based on the pleadings of the parties and the obligation of the Counsel to assist the Court in the process of framing issues.
Fact of the Case:

The complaints arose from the judgments and orders passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the Industrial Court, where the petitioner-employer was not given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of disciplinary action by the petitioner against the respondents, after the Labour Court held that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer were not based on legal and acceptable evidence and hence, were perverse.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the employer's right to adduce evidence arises only if it is reserved while filing the written statement and cannot be claimed as a matter of right after the Labour Court arrives at a conclusion about the Domestic Enquiry being vitiated. It emphasized the duty of the Court to frame issues based on the pleadings of the parties and the obligation of the Counsel to assist the Court in the process of framing issues.
Issues: The issues revolved around the right of the employer to adduce evidence in case the Domestic Enquiry is held to be vitiated for non-compliance with the rules of natural justice or for perversity, and the duty of the Court to frame issues based on the pleadings of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the employer's right to adduce evidence arises only if it is reserved while filing the written statement and cannot be claimed as a matter of right after the Labour Court arrives at a conclusion about the Domestic Enquiry being vitiated. It highlighted the duty of the Court to frame issues based on the pleadings of the parties and the obligation of the Counsel to assist the Court in the process of framing issues.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside to the extent the same were beyond the decision of the Labour Court on the point that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not based on legal and acceptable evidence and hence, were perverse. The matter was remanded to the Labour Court to decide it afresh by giving opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of the charges framed and punishment imposed in the matter and, in accordance with the provisions of law.

JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2. Since a common question of law arises in all these five petitions, they are being heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.

4. The petitions arise from the judgments and orders dated 6th April, 1999 passed by the Labour Court, Jalgaon, in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 152/1995, 138/1995, 134/1995, 153/1995, and 135/1995 and confirmed by the Industrial Court, Jalgaon in Revision Application (ULP) Nos. 778/1999 by judgment and order dated 16-1-2001, No. 782/1999 by judgment and order dated 19-1-2001, No. 779/1999 by judgment and order dated 23-1-2001, No. 781/1999 by judgment and order dated 25-1-2001, and No. 780/1999 by judgment and order dated 29-1-2001. The challenge to the impugned judgments and orders is on the ground that the petitioner-employer was not given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of disciplinary action by the petitioner against the respondents, after the Labour Court has held that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer were not based on legal and acceptable evidence and hence, were perverse.

5. The facts, in brief, relevant for the decision are that the complaint came to be filed by the respondent contending that on false reports, charge-sheets for alleged misconduct came to be issued against the respondents. Pursuant to the enquiries conducted not in fair and proper manner and not in compliance of the principles of natural justice, and on the basis of the reports of the Enquiry Officer, the punishment of dismissal from services was imposed for the alleged misconduct. The complaints were contested by the petitioner denying all the allegations against the petitioner and justifying the action taken against the respondents. The Labour Court by its preliminary order held that the inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the complainants led evidence to point out the perversity in the findings and on the point of quantum of punishment which was sought to be countered by leading evidence on behalf of the petitioner and, thereafter, the judgment dated 6th April, 1999 came to be passed by the Labour Court holding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not based on legal and acceptable evidence and hence, perverse and the punishment imposed was also shockingly disproportionate as compared to the gravity of the proved misconduct and to that extent, the petitioner had indulged in unfair labour practice under Item No. 1(g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as "the said Act"). Further, the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondents along with payment of 75% of backwages with interest @ 9% per annum. The Industrial Court refused to interfere in the said order in the revision applications filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

6. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and another)1, reported in 2001(3) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)623 and (Bharat Forge Company Ltd. v. A.B. Zodge and another)2, reported in 1996(73) F.L.R. Page 1754, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in its written statement had specifically prayed for an opportunity to lead proper evidence to substantiate the charges of misconduct and the final action as well as the validity and legality of the Domestic Enquiry. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court to the effect that in case disciplinary action taken by the employer is held to be vitiated, then the employer would be entitled to adduce evidence in support of the charges of misconduct before the Labour Court, it is sought to be contended that the Labour Court having held for the first time by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document