IMPORTANT POINT
The management's right to challenge the validity of a domestic enquiry and present fresh evidence is contingent upon the preliminary findings of the Tribunal, and such challenges should not delay the final resolution of industrial disputes.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the Order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, whereby, the domestic enquiry held by the management against the delinquient workmen has been held not to be proper.

3. The facts of the petitioner’s case is as follows:

Four nos. of workers i.e. Sri Nirendra Barman, Shri Naba Gogoi, Shri Sanjib Moran and Shri Jintu Tamuli of the petitioner’s Company were dismissed by the management after holding a domestic enquiry. Thereafter, upon dispute being raised by the Union against the said dismissal orders passed by the management, conciliation proceedings were held and the same being failed, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh for adjudicating the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (herein after referred as ‘the Act of 1947’) which is hereunder:

1. Whether the management of the Hindustan Unilever Limited (P.P.F) are justified in dismissing the services of Sri Nirendra Barman, Shri Naba Gogoi, Shri Sanjib Moran and Shri Jintu Tamuli, i.e., the respondent No. 4 to 7 from the Company w.e.f. 06.09.2010?

2. If not, whether the four workmen are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages?

3. If not, what other relief the workmen are entitled to?

4. Thereafter, both the management and the workmen side submitted their pleadings before the Industrial Tribunal. Further, the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal praying for trying the validity of domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue before going into the merits of the case.

5. The Industrial Tribunal accordingly, framed a preliminary issue which reads as “whether the domestic enquiry held against the four workmen is valid and lawful?”

6. Accordingly, the said issue was taken up for hearing, whereafter, the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties hold that the enquiry held by the management is not proper and accordingly, allowed both the parties to adduce further evidence if they desire in order to decide the reference on merit. The said order of the learned Tribunal is under challenge before this Court.

7. Mr. B. Dutta, learned Senior counsel submits that the order of the Tribunal is absolutely erroneous. He further submits that the enquiry was held properly after giving due opportunity to the workmen. He further submits that the order of the Tribunal holding the enquiry to be improper is erroneous in law. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:

1. Sur Enamel and Staming Works Limited Vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1914

2. State of U.P. Vs. Harendra Arora and Another, (2001) 6 SCC 392

3. Union of India Vs. Alok Kumar, (2010) 5 SCC 349

4. Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Limited Vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993) 2 SCC 115

5. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Maharastra General Kamgar Union and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 626

6. D.G. Railway Protection Force and Others Vs. K. Raghuram Babu, (2008) 4 SCC 406

7. Cholan Roadways Limited Vs. G. Thirugynanasambandam, (2005) 3 SCC 241

8. State Bank of India Vs. Bidhyut Kumar Mitra, (2011) 2 SCC 316

9. Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. Union of india and Others, (2011) 14 SCC 692

10. M.L. Singhal Vs. Punjab National Bank and Another, (2018) 18 SCC 21

11. Standard Chartered Bank Vs. R.C. Srivastava, (2021) 19 SCC 281

8. Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal deciding the preliminary issue against the management as regards the validity of the domestic enquiry which can be otherwise assailed by the petitioner’s Company, if ultimately the award is passed in favour of the Union. In support of the afore