An employer's right to lead evidence before a Labour Court following an invalid domestic enquiry is not automatic. It must be explicitly requested at an early stage, such as in the written statement. In the absence of such a request, the Court is under no obligation to provide this opportunity suo motu.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. P. Borah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.

2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 13.02.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, Assam in Case No. 01/2022 under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1947 Act”), whereby the termination of the respondent workman was held to be illegal and the petitioner management was directed to reinstate him in service within three months, albeit with stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and without back wages.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 4 workman was appointed as a Technical Worker (Fitter) on 01.07.2008. Allegations were levelled against him relating to misconduct, including indiscipline, absenteeism, and acts prejudicial to the interests of the organization. A domestic enquiry was conducted, culminating in termination of his service by order dated 02.06.2020.

4. Aggrieved, the workman invoked Section 2A of the 1947 Act before the learned Labour Court, Assam, seeking reinstatement in service with full back wages.

5. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court, upon adjudication, by the impugned award dated 13.12.2022, held the domestic enquiry to be improper and proceeded to set aside the termination and direct reinstatement, though without back wages. Situated thus, the present writ petition.

6. Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned Labour Court, upon holding the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner management to be unfair and improper, ought not to have straightaway directed reinstatement of the workman. It is contended that it was obligatory for the Labour Court to first decide the validity of the domestic enquiry, and if answered in the negative, to thereafter decide the issue of termination on merits by giving both parties an opportunity to adduce evidence.

He submits that when dismissal/termination of a workman is brought before the Labour Court either by way of reference under Section 10 or under Section 2A(2) of the 1947 Act, it is obligatory for the Labour Court to first decide the validity of the domestic enquiry. In the event the enquiry is found to be defective or invalid, the Court must then enter into the merits by giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence afresh.

In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Apex Court:

(i) Management of Ritz Theatre (Private) Ltd. Delhi -VsWorkmen, reported in (1963) 3 SCR 461.

(ii) Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd -Vs- The workman , reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1914.

(iii) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. -Vs- Ludh Budh Singh , reported in (1972) 1 SCC 595.

(iv) The workmen of M/S Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd -Vs- The Management and Others, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813.

(v) The Cooper Engineering Limited -Vs- Shri P. P. Mundhe , reported in (1975) 2 SCC 661.

(vi) Neeta Kaplish -Vs- Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another , reported in (1999) 1 SCC 517.

(vii) The East India Hotel -Vs- Their Workmen and Others. , reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 696.

(viii) Shankar Chakravarti -Vs- Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. And Another , reported in (1979) 3 SCC 371.

(ix)