Order.-The first respondent herein was appointed as a watchman in the petitioner’s factory at Porur in the year 1965. On 25th April, 1971 at about 11-10 hours in the night, the first respondent was found carrying one bag of metal scraps valued at Rs. 200 from the factory premises to the outer fence near the Water Treatment Plant and threw it outside the fence and another person took the bundle and went away. On the basis that the first respondent has committed theft of company’s property, a. charge memo. Dated 26th April, 1971 was issued to him and he was directed to submit his explanation within 24 hours. The first respondent did not offer any explanation even after two months.

2. Thereafter, an enquiry into the charge was held on 1st July, 1971 by an Enquiry Officer nominated by the Management. The first respondent participated in the enquiry. Some witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management. But the first respondent did not choose to cross-examine the Management’s witnesses. However, he examined himself with reference to the allegations made against him, but he refused to sign the enquiry proceedings stating that he would do so only after consulting his lawyer. The enquiry was adjourned to 6th July, 1971 at 3.00 p.m. at his request. But the first respondent did not appear and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry and gave his findings on 7th July, 1971. The Management after duly considering the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, dismissed the first respondent from service by an order dated 9th July, 1971.

3. The first respondent, therefore, raised an industrial dispute with reference to his non-employment and the dispute was referred to the second respondent by CO. Rt. No. 64, Labour and Employment, dated 10th January, 1973. In the claim statement filed by the first respondent, he questioned the validity of the order of dismissal passed at the domestic enquiry on the ground that in the criminal proceedings initiated by the Management he has been acquitted and that the dismissal from service cannot, therefore, be sustained. The petitioner however filed its counter statement rebutting the contentions of the first respondent and stated that the acquittal by the criminal Court later will not invalidate the order of dismissal which had been passed by the Management earlier.

4. The second respondent, after duly considering the rival contentions, held that the domestic enquiry was not vitiated for the reason that it was conducted at a time when the criminal proceedings were pending and that the domestic enquiry had been fair and proper. The second respondent, however, relying on the judgment of the criminal Court and after extracting certain portions thereof, held that the charge of theft levelled against the first respondent in the domestic enquiry cannot be said to have been proved. In that view, he awarded back wages and reasonable compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service, by an order dated 18th January, 1974. The validity of the said award has been challenged in this writ petition.

5. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is mainly threes-fold. (1) Once the Labour Court finds that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper and the concerned worker had been given due and reasonable opportunity to put forward his case, the findings rendered at the domestic enquiry cannot be lightly interfered with by the Labour Court and that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to go into the merits to find out whether the materials are sufficient to warrant a finding of guilt and the punishment based thereon, only when the domestic enquiry is found to be incomplete or unfair.

(2). The Labour Court is not justified in entirely relying on the judgment of the criminal Court and setting aside the findings at the domestic enquiry.

(3). The Labour Court is not justified in taking extracts from the criminal Court’s judgment and relying on the same for its conclusion that the charge levelled against the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document