1999 Supreme(Mad) 983

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN
Management of Sundaram Industries Limited (Rubber Factory) Madurai - Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and Another - Respondents
W.P. No. 12955 of 1999 and W.M.P. No. 18570 of 1999
Decided On : 23 September 1999

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2-A - DOMESTIC ENQUIRY - VALIDITY - PRELIMINARY ISSUE - RES JUDICATA - WRIT PETITION - QUASHING OF ORDER - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - MANAGEMENT'S RIGHT TO LEAD EVIDENCE - STAGE - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 11-A - SCOPE - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL'S POWER TO RE-APPRECIATE EVIDENCE - COOPER ENGINEERING LTD. V. P. P. MUNDHE - FOLLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a workman, was employed with the writ petitioner since 1st March, 1974 and working as mould press operator along with three others accosted at the entrance of the petitioner's factory, the Junior Foreman on 21.9.1989 at about 4.30 pm when he was coming back to work abused and attacked the said foreman, who had to run into the factory for his safety, as he was threatened by the second respondent and others. With respect to the alleged incident a charge memo dated 25.9.1989 was served on the second respondent workman calling upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken for the misconduct reported against him and the second respondent in his explanation dated 27.9.1989 denied the charges. The second respondent was placed under suspension and the same was challenged by filing a suit. The second respondent's attempt to get orders of injunction with respect to the orders of suspension was not successful. Not being satisfied with the objections, the writ petitioner management conducted enquiry and appointed an Advocate to be the Enquiry Officer. After prolonged enquiry and after following the procedure prescribed and principles of natural justice, the enquiry came to be concluded on 1.11.1990. The second respondent workman had been demanding copies or for a common enquiry and raised other objections with a view to delay the proceedings. Witnesses were examined before the enquiry officer and the workman declined to cross examine witnesses under the pretext that he had not been paid the subsistence allowances. The enquiry officer submitted his findings on 15.2.1991 holding that the charges against the second respondent are proved. The writ petitioner management concurred with the findings reported and after communicating the findings and calling for the objections, the writ petitioner management dismissed the second respondent. Being aggrieved the second respondent raised industrial dispute under Section2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D. No. 353 of 1992 on the file of the first respondent labour court. The second respondent-workman had filed his claim statement and the writ petitioner - management had filed its objections. In the claim petition, the workman had raised number of pleas and contentions. In the counter statement filed by the writ petitioner management, while denying all allegations and averments, the writ petitioner management contended that there was a valid enquiry and the irregularities pointed out by the workman with respect to the enquiry are imaginary afterthought that the workman persisted in his illegal demands and walked out of the enquiry, that the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the standing orders and there is no obligation to give a second show cause notice and that non-communication of the findings will not vitiate the proceedings. It was also pointed out by the writ petitioner that the workman is not entitled to have the assistance of a lawyer as the Presenting Officer appointed by the Management was not a legally trained person and the workman was permitted to avail the assistance of a co-worker. In other words, the writ petitioner/management contended that the enquiry has been conducted perfectly in accordance with the principles of natural justice and on no ground can it be assailed. It was further pointed out by the writ petitioner/management, if the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is vitiated, the respondent may be permitted to lead evidence before the Labour Court and justify their action in dismissing the second respondent from service, as has been held by the Apex Court in Cooper Engineering case.

Finding of the Court:

The Labour Court by order dated 7th July, 1999 framed the point for consideration as herein : "Whether the petitioner is entitled to reopen his side to enable him to adduce evidence ?" The Labour Court also incidentally considered the objections as to the plea of res judicata put forward by the writ petitioner management. On the said point for consideration, the Labour Court presumably placing reliance on certain observations made in the latter pronouncement of the Apex Court ordered the interlocutory application filed by the workman to reopen and let in evidence even before deciding the preliminary issue, besides over ruling the objections regarding the plea of res judicata.

Issues: 1. Whether even before recording a finding on the preliminary issue as to the legality or validity of domestic enquiry conduced by the management, the workman could be allowed to let in evidence on merits relating to the imputations, charges and findings ? 2. Whether the earlier orders passed in two interlocutory applications in the same industrial dispute constitute res judicata ? 3. To what relief ?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. When a domestic enquiry has been held by an employer and when he relies on the same it is well open to the employer to request the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as the preliminary issue and also ask for an opportunity to let in evidence before the Tribunal, if the finding on the preliminary issue is answered against the management. 2. The Tribunal has to deal with at the first instance as to the validity of the domestic enquiry and the contra view taken by the Labour Court in this respect cannot be sustained. 3. The plea of res judicata will apply on the facts of the present case.

Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Labour Court is quashed and I.A. No. 125 of 1999 in I.D. No. 353 of 1992 on the file of the first respondent Labour Court alone stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. is closed. It is needless to state that the Labour Court shall decide the preliminary issue expeditiously without delay and in the event of the Labour Court deciding the preliminary issue against the management it is open to the management to seek for an opportunity to substantiate the charges by leading evidence. The delay could not be avoided on the facts as the workman had contributed much for the delay. It is needless to add that the Labour Court has to give priority to I.D. No. 353 of 1999 pending on its file since 1992 and see that the matter is disposed of expeditiously.