An employer is not required to conduct a detailed inquiry where an employee admits/confesses his guilt.

JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 18.2.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and award dated 29.9.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal was quashed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. In-fact, it was a case of no inquiry. Appellant had not made any admission/confession before the inquiry officer. Signatures of the appellant had been taken on blank papers. Even if the appellant had made any admission/confession, it was imperative on the respondent to have held an inquiry against the appellant before terminating his services. No interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made out, as the award of the labour Court could not be said to be perverse. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on The State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Jagdish Chandra Khadgawat, 1986 (2) SLR 424, wherein it Division Bench of this Court held as under:-

“15. xxx

…...It is not necessary to multiply the authorities, as the position appears to be well settled by the apex court of the country. In these circumstances, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of the so-called admitted facts or admissions made by the petitioner-respondent in his statement before the Investigating Officer Shri S.C. Chhabra, which has been produced as Ex. R. 4 no useful purpose could be served by holding enquiry or that no further enquiry was necessary. It may be stated that the allegation of forfeiture of trust and confidence of the Bank is in respect of the conduct attaching stigma on the petitioner-respondent. It was held in Chandulal's case that the enquiry is a condition precedent for inflicting penalty of termination of service. ”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has next placed reliance on the case of KVS Ram vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2015) 12 SCC 39, wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-

“12. In Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Co.Ltd., it was held as under:-(SCC pp. 440-41, paras 15-16)

"15. We find the judgment and award of the Labour Court well reasoned and based on facts and evidence on record. The High Court has erred in its exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to annul the findings of the Labour Court in its award as it is well-settled law that the High Court cannot exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution as an appellate court or reappreciate evidence and record its findings on the contentious points. Only if there is a serious error of law or the findings recorded suffer from error apparent on record, can the High Court quash the order of a lower court. The Labour Court in the present case has satisfactorily exercised its original jurisdiction and properly appreciated the facts and legal evidence on record and given a well-reasoned order and answered the points of dispute in favour of the appellant. The High Court had no reason to interfere with the same as the award of the Labour Court was based on sound and cogent reasoning, which has served the ends of justice.

16. It is relevant to mention that in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, with regard to the limitations of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227, it was held in para 49 that: (SCC p. 348)

"49. (m) ... The power of interference under [Article 227] is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court."

4. It was also held that: (SCC p. 347, para 49)

"49. (c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exe