The Labour Court's power as an Appellate Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the requirement for a comprehensive disposal of cases.

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioners are the Superintending Engineer of Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle and two others. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the second respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.265 of 2001 dated 30.12.2008, the present writ petition has been filed. By the impugned Award, the second respondent - Labour Court directed reinstatement of the first respondent with 50% of the backwages.

3. When the writ petition came up for hearing, this Court directed the petitioners to serve notice on the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/workman before the Labour Court. Accordingly, notice was given to M/s.B.Divakaran and B. Dineshkumar, and they took notice for the first respondent. Since the records relating to the industrial dispute were not filed along with this writ petition, this court directed the original records to be summoned from the Labour Court. Accordingly, the records were summoned and circulated to this Court. This Court perused the original records.

4. The case of the first respondent/Workman before the Labour Court as evidenced from his claim statement dated 05.05.2001 was that without any proper enquiry and evidence, he was dismissed from service and no opportunity was given to him. Though he had made these grounds in his appeal, the Appellate Authority did not dispose of the appeal. It forced him to move this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.4289 of 1998. The writ petition was allowed and a direction was given to dispose of the appeal filed by the first respondent/Workman within two months. The appeal was also rejected. He had also stated that his non-employment since 1975 was illegal and malafide.

5. In the Counter statement filed by the petitioners/Board, it was claimed that the Workman was unauthorisedly absent from 02.03.1975. He had given wrong postal address and produced false medical certificate. He did not submit any explanation to the charge memo. The show cause notice itself was given only to give him reasonable opportunity to defend himself. It was indicated that the provisional punishment contained therein would be imposed. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 30.08.1976. His explanation was not accepted. Thereafter, he was terminated from service. His appeal petition was also rejected by the first petitioner. The said order was returned by the postal authority on the ground that the petitioner was not available in the said address. Thereafter, in the counter statement dated 15.02.2002, the petitioners/Board claimed that they went to let in oral and documentary evidence to justify the dismissal order dated 30.09.1976 and they sought for permission.

6. The Labour Court took up the dispute as I.D.No.265 of 2001. On the side of the Workman, he examined himself as W.W.1 and 12 documents were filed and marked as Exs.W1 to W12. On the side of the petitioners/Board, 3 documents were filed and marked as Exs.M1 to M3. They also examined one K. Mani, who was the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle as M.W.1.

7. The Labour Court did not frame any preliminary issue with reference to validity of the enquriy. On the contrary, the Labour Court held that no domestic enquiry was conducted against the Workman based on the principles of natural justice. No oral or documentary evidence were let in by the Board to prove the charges levelled against the workman and no fair opportunity was given to the Workman to defend him. Hence, the dismissal order passed by the petitioners/Board was held to be invalid. Therefore, only on the ground that the dismissal order did not preceded by an enquiry, the dismissal order was set aside.

8. In the present case, the Labour Court did not understand the scope of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as held by the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., v. The Management and others reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813. In that