The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide the employer with an opportunity to adduce evidence when a domestic enquiry is found to be defective, as per the principles established by the Supreme Court.

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner is permitted to delete the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, who has been made respondent no. 2 from the array of parties and re-arrange the party position in the cause title in the course of the day.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, learned Standing Counsel No.8 for the State. Despite valid service of notice, respondent no. 2 (the workman) has neither appeared in person nor is being represented through counsel.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the award dated 28.04.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna in Reference Case No. 11 of 2009/16 of 2000 whereby and where under termination of the workman by the management has been held to be unjustified and an order has been passed to re-instate him with back wages except for the period between 17.02.1989 and 04.11.1995.

4. The Government of Bihar, vide its notification no. 696 dated 18.12.1999 under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), referred the industrial dispute between the workman and the petitioner to the Labour Court, Patna for adjudication of the dispute. The reference made by the State reads as under:-

"Whether the termination from service of workman Shri Ram Naresh Choudhary, Ex-conductor Godda Depot, Godda Divison of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna by the management is justified? If not, what relief workman is entitled to?"

5. The said reference was registered as Reference Case No. 16 of 2000 and, after hearing the parties, initially an award was passed on 01.06.2007 by the Labour Court, Patna observing that the court at Patna had no jurisdiction as the charge pertains to Dumka Division in the State of Jharkhand, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court at Patna.

6. Against the said award, a writ petition vide CWJC No. 15882 of 2009 was filed by the workman in which while setting aside the award this Court directed the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Patna to proceed with the Reference Case No. 16 of 2000 and dispose of the same at the earliest and, in any case, within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. Thereafter, the workman and the petitioner appeared before the Labour Court, Patna and submitted their reply and contested the matter.

7. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court passed the impugned award on 28.04.2011 observing therein that the termination of the workman by the management was not justified and he is entitled to re-instatement with back wages except for the period between 17.02.1989 and 04.11.1995. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated 28.04.2011, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

8. Mr. P.K. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that once the domestic enquiry was held improper, it was incumbent upon the Labour Court to have provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for adducing evidence of independent witnesses against the workman. He submitted that though a prayer in this regard was made before the Labour Court, the same was erroneously rejected on the ground that such prayer was not made by the petitioner at the earliest available opportunity. He submitted that the Labour Court committed error in not framing the preliminary issue for deciding the illegality of domestic enquiry and after having found fault in the domestic enquiry he committed another error in not allowing the petitioner to lead evidence of independent witnesses.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the workman and the management appeared before the Labour Court and they also argued the case in part on the point of relief to the workman after holding the domestic enquiry to be illegal. After arguing the case in part on the point of relief as provided under Section 11-A of the Act, a belated application was filed by