The court reinforced that adherence to natural justice is essential in domestic enquiries, and failure to comply can invalidate disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT :

K. BABU, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated 3.4.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode, in Industrial Dispute No. 55 of 2017. K.V.R. Motor Cars Private Limited represented by its Managing Director, is the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Management”). Sri. Sasikumar K. is the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the workman”). Facts:

2. Under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of Kerala on 11.8.2017 referred the industrial dispute to the Labour Court. The dispute reads thus:

“Whether the dismissal of Sri. K. Sasikumar, worker of KVR Motors Cars Private Limited, West Hill, Kozhikode, as a result of punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action is justifiable or not? If not, what are the remedies available to him?”

3. The workman had been employed by the Management as an electrician from 7.10.2018 on a monthly salary of Rs.11,500/-. On 30.3.2015, his employment was re-designated as ‘Maintenance cum Driver’. On 24.8.2016, the Management assigned a job to which the workman failed to perform. A show cause notice was issued to the workman. A domestic enquiry was conducted. The workman was found guilty and dismissed from the employment.

4. The workman pleaded that on 24.8.2016, in response to the assignment given to him, he had informed the Management that he would not be able to attend the job due to the illness of his child, who has been suffering from cerebral ailments and in need of daily medical attention. According to the workman, the domestic enquiry was conducted without following the rules and natural justice. The workman pleaded that it was under compulsion he had to affix his signature in the letter assigning re-designation of his employment as ‘Maintenance cum Driver’.

5. The Management pleaded that the workman was dismissed from service on justifiable terms. He had indulged in very serious misconduct and dereliction of duty against the better interest and welfare of the establishment. He proved to be unfit to continue as an employee under the Management. The domestic enquiry conducted was free, fair, and impartial, strictly conformed to the statutory rules and regulations, and it observed the principles of natural justice. The workman has been employed as ‘Maintenance cum Driver’ in the Management since 2013. The Management never employed him as an ‘Electrician’.

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Management and the learned counsel appearing for the workman.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the Management submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice is without any foundation. The reasoning applied to set aside the enquiry report by the Labour Court is against the settled principles of law.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the workman submitted that the domestic enquiry violated the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the relevant documents relied on by the Management in the enquiry were not served to the workman at the time of giving evidence.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the Management submitted that this is a fit case in which the matter is liable to be remitted to the Labour Court to consider the same afresh.

10. The Labour Court considered the validity of the enquiry report as a preliminary issue and set aside the same, holding that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Management, without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry was proper and binding, adduced evidence before the Labour Court justifying its action.

11. While trying the preliminary issue, the Labour Court examined the Enquiry Officer as MW1 and marked Ext.M1 enquiry file. The workman was examined as WW1, and Exts.W1 to W12 were marked on his side.

12. In further enquiry after the preliminary order, the HR Manager of the Management gave evidence as MW1 and Exts.M1 t