Heard Mr. K Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner/management and Mr. A Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/workman.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the management for quashing of the award on preliminary issue, passed by the learned Labour Court, Guwahati, on 30.03.2015, in Ref. Case No.1/2010.

By the award on preliminary issue, dated 30.03.2015, the learned Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management against the workman (respondent No.1 herein) was not valid and accordingly, decided to hear the management by adducing of evidence to justify its action of dismissal of the workman.

Basic facts relevant for adjudication of the case may be briefly noted.

Petitioner is the management of a tea estate, called “Pertabghur Tea Estate”. Respondent No.1 was a workman of the petitioner. On 31.05.2003, a show cause notice was issued to him by the management charging him with committing misconduct inasmuch as he had prevented workers of the petitioner from discharging their duties for which verbal and written complaints were lodged by a group of workers before the management. Respondent No.1 was also placed under suspension. Explanation furnished by respondent No.1 was found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly management decided to hold a domestic inquiry against the respondent No.1 on the charges mentioned in the show cause notice.

In the meanwhile, another show-cause notice was issued to the respondent No.1 on the charge that he tried to incite the workers against the management for deduction of union subscription from wages of the workers. Written explanation furnished by the respondent No.1 was found to be not satisfactory. It was, therefore, decided to hold inquiry against respondent No.1.

Inquiry was conducted by appointing independent Enquiry Officer. Witnesses of both the sides were examined and cross-examined. On conclusion of the enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the management on 22.03.2004 holding respondent No.1 guilty of misconduct as charged. Though copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to respondent No.1, he did not submit any representation. Thereafter, management passed order dated 04.05.2004 dismissing respondent No.1 from service.

Respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer seeking reinstatement in service. Assistant Labour Commissioner held conciliation proceeding between the management and the workman. However, the conciliation proceeding failed. Matter was referred to the appropriate government. Ultimately, the appropriate government i.e., the Govt. of Assam in the Labour & Employment Department, issued notification dated 01.04.2010, under section 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 making a reference to the Labour Court for adjudication of the following issues: -

i) Whether the management of Pertabghur Tea Estate was justified in dismissing the services of Sri Hiren Bhumij w.e.f. 04.05.2004?

ii) If not, whether the workman Sri Hiren Bhumij is entitled for reinstatement with back wages or any other benefits in lieu thereof?

On notices being issued, both the sides appeared and filed their written statements.

Management in their written statement has justified the punishment imposed on the workman as well as the validity of the domestic inquiry. Management relied on the domestic inquiry and requested the learned Labour Court to decide validity of the domestic inquiry as a preliminary issue. It was stated that if the decision went against the management on the preliminary issue, opportunity may be given to the management to adduce evidence in support of the charge against the workman and his dismissal. Management also filed a petition for framing of preliminary issue. Accordingly, the following preliminary issue was framed: -

Whether domestic inquiry held by the management is valid or not?

On due consideration, the learned Labour Court held that the inquiry cond