The reliance on additional evidence and cross-examination to establish misconduct must be in accordance with legal propositions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Award in I.D.No.827 of 2001 dated 06.08.2012 passed by the first respondent holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved and that the dismissal was justified and declining to grant him any relief quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to reinstate him with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits with award costs.)

1. The charge against the petitioner, who was employed as a Driver in the second respondent/Corporation is that, on 06.11.1996 an accident took place owing to his negligence and the victim died on the spot. During the course of inquiry, oral and documentary evidences were let in before the Inquiry Officer and based on the proven charges, the petitioner was dismissed from service through an order dated 10.06.1997. The appeal against the dismissal order was also rejected.

2. Before the Labour Court, when the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as “ID Act”], the Labour Court had found that the domestic inquiry conducted by the second respondent/Corporation was fair and proper, in the following manner:-

“11) The enquiry proceedings was marked as Ex.M4, it is seen from this document that the petitioner participated in the enquiry and M.W1 was examined in the presence of the petitioner on 15.2.97 and the statement of M.W1 Natarajan was recorded on that day and on behalf of the management, 9 documents were marked. Since the petitioner had requested the enquiry officer to adjourn the enquiry to some other date, the same was adjourned to 1.3.1997 for the cross examination of M.W1 and the copies of documents were given to the Petitioner for an effective cross examination. On 1.3.97 M.W1 was cross examined by the petitioner in the lengthy manner and the evidence of the Petitioner was closed. The petitioner also requested the enquiry officer to treat the explanation given by the petitioner to the management as his statement and the management was permitted to cross examine the petitioner and the same was done by the management. Since, the petitioner reported that there is no further evidence, the enquiry was closed. So, it is seen from the proceedings of the enquiry that reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the management witness and he was also examined as witness and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. So, this Court is of the considered opinion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent management was fair and proper and the same is in accordance with law.”

3. However, the Labour Court had let in further oral evidence before it and examined W.W.1 on the part of the petitioner and M.W.1 and M.W.2 for the Management. The documentary evidences were also marked on both sides. In general, on the basis of the evidence before it and in particular, on the basis of crossexamination of M.W.1 and M.W.2 before the Labour Court, the Award came to be passed, by holding that the charge of misconduct against the petitioner was established by the Management and the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the Management was not disproportionate to the charge of misconduct. Accordingly, the Industrial Dispute came to be dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner predominantly raised a ground stating that, when the Labour Court had held the domestic inquiry to be fair and proper, the Labour Court cannot rely upon the evidence led before it and reject the claim of the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent/Transport Corporation placed reliance on the observations made by the Labour Court in the Award and submitted that, in the ultimate paragraph of the Award, the Labour Court had also taken into account the fin