JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Issuance of a writ of, or in the nature of, a certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.03.2009 (annexure-11) passed by Shri Mahesh Prasad Sinha, learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 8 of 2005 whereby the enquiry held into the charges against the respondent workman culminating in finding of guilt and leading to termination of service of the respondent has been held to be invalid.

(B) Issuance of an appropriate writ of, or in the nature of, a certiorari for setting aside the award dated 29th July, 2009 (Annexure-15) pronounced on 01.10.2009 in Reference Case no. 8 of 2005 by Shri Mahesh Prasad Sinha, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi by holding that the termination of respondent workman was without any proper enquiry and was thus a nullity and directing reinstatement of the workman respondent in service with 50% back wages.

(C) Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found to be entitled in law, be also granted for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

Arguments of the petitioner.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present writ petition the order passed by the Labour Court declaring the domestic enquiry as invalid, as well as, the final award, are under challenge. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that merely because the charge-sheet was not formally drawn, the same by itself cannot be a ground to vitiate the departmental enquiry.

4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1957 (1) LLJ 226 (Burn & Co. Ltd. Vs. Their Employees) (para 4) and also the judgement reported in AIR 1973 SC 1227 (Para 30, 32 and 33).

5. The learned Senior counsel further submits that another point involved in the present case is that immediately after the domestic enquiry was held to be invalid, the petitioner, within a couple of days, had filed an application seeking leave to adduce evidence, but the same was declined by referring to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Shambhu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of Baroda and Others ” reported in (1983) 4 SCC 491. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal, the facts and circumstances were totally different. The same was decided prior to coming into force of Section 11 -A in the Industrial Disputes Act. He has also submitted that there was considerable delay in exercising power by the management of the said case to seek permission to adduce evidence and the ratio of the said judgement is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. He has submitted that the bonafide of the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the moment the domestic enquiry was held to be invalid, immediate steps were taken to file an application which was arbitrarily rejected by the learned court below causing great prejudice to the petitioner.

6. The learned Senior counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the domestic enquiry is held to be valid, then under such circumstances, the matter is to be remanded for consideration by the learned court below in accordance with law. He submits that even if the domestic enquiry is held to be invalid, then opportunity be given to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of the action taken by the petitioner against the respondent –workman.

7. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1999) 1 SCC 517 ( Neeta Kaplish Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another ) (para 18); (1979) 3 SCC 371 ( Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Another ) (para 27 and 28) and (2018) 4 SCC 483 ( Kurukshetra University Vs. Prithvi Singh ) (para 18 to 20).

Arguments of the Respondent workman.

8. The learned counsel appearing o