The court affirmed that once a reference is made under the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court must adjudicate the dispute, and upheld the fairness of the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 22.10.2011 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No.11 of 1997 whereby the learned court has held that the reference was not maintainable and has also decided the case on merit that the termination of service of the concerned workman Sri B. Alam by the management was proper and the workman was not entitled for any relief.

2. The terms of reference before learned labour court, Jamshedpur was as follows:

“Whether the termination of service of Shri B. Alam, Billet cutter check no.2006 by M/s Tisco Tubes Division is proper? If not, what relief he is entitled to?”

Arguments of the Petitioners.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while assailing the impugned award, has submitted that the finding of the learned court that the reference itself was not maintainable, is perverse inasmuch as once the dispute is referred to the labour court for adjudication, the learned labour court has no option, but to answer the reference. The learned counsel submits that the detail discussion with regard to the maintainability of reference is from paragraph 7 wherein the case of respective parties has been recorded. He has submitted that at the time of making reference, the existence of industrial dispute is required to be examined and the reference having been made, there cannot be any doubt that the industrial dispute was existing, but the learned court has held that the dispute itself was a stale one. He submits that the finding of the learned labour court that the reference itself was not maintainable is beyond the jurisdiction conferred upon the learned labour court, and is consequently perverse which calls for interference. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 14 SCC 176 (Kuldeep Singh Vs. General Manager, Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and another).

4. The learned counsel has further submitted that the domestic inquiry was held to be fair and proper, but the inquiry officer, was an outsider which is not permissible under the standing order governing the petitioner. The learned counsel has further submitted that even the second show cause notice was not given to the petitioners, and therefore, the inquiry could not have been held to be fair and proper.

5. The inquiry was held to be fair and proper vide order dated 10.08.2011. He has placed the entire order and during the course of argument, it transpired that neither the objection with regard to the appointment of the inquiry officer was taken at the stage of inquiry nor any plea was raised in connection with non-issuance of second show cause notice before the learned court.

6. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though no such a plea with regard to issuance of second show cause was raised before the learned labour court, but the petitioner has raised this plea in the writ petition and he submits that such a plea being a pure question of law can be considered. He has submitted that issuance of second show cause is an important step in the matter of domestic inquiry and second show cause having not been issued, the entire inquiry proceeding is vitiated, and therefore, the inquiry proceeding could not be held to be fair and proper.

7. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the learned counsel has submitted that a specific plea was taken before the learned labour court in paragraph 23 of the written statement that one Sitakant Pandey, was also charge sheeted for same and similar charges as that of the concerned workman involved in this case and that he was held guilty by the inquiry officer but was taken back in service after awarding punishment of suspension of 15 days. Another person namely Sitaram Sahu was also proceeded against on the same and similar charges but no action was taken against him. Other workmen namely Roop