The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the principles governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal when adjudicating disputes relating to dismissal or discharge.

JUDGMENT :

S.Vaidyanathan, J.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.12964 of 2020, confirming the Award of the Labour Court in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent/employee, dated 18.04.2015 and directing the Management (appellant) to reinstate him into service with effect from 18.04.2015 and with full back-wages and other monetary benefits and however, there shall be cut in increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

2. According to the Management, the employee was involved in serious misconduct using abusive language and assaulting one Saravanan on 07.11.2013. The employee had joined service in the year 1988 as Trainee and he had rendered so many years of unblemished service, except for the incident in question. Though it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/Management that the employee has bad past record, no evidence has been produced before the Labour Court to prove the same and hence, to prove such contention, he relied on documents, which are not produced before the Labour Court, but the same cannot be accepted by this Court, as laid down in 1992 (2) LLJ 101 (Madras High Court) (Madras Aluminium Company Ltd., Mettur Dam Vs. Labour Court, Coimbatore and another), wherein it has been held as follows:

"7. It is not in dispute that while the matter was argued before the Labour Court, neither the Tamil Nadu Boilers Attendants Examination Rules were referred to or pressed into service by the petitioner/management, nor any details regarding the initial appointment of the juniors of the second respondent who were confirmed in service, be it a helper or in any other capacity, were produced for the consideration of the Labour Court. It is not given to any of the parties to a proceeding to introduce points and produce the records at different stages as it suits them. The parties before the Labour Court have invited the decision of the Labour Court on the basis of certain materials, and on a particular plea raised before it and if that be so, it is not open to one of the parties to the proceedings before the Labour Court to try to introduce new materials which involve factual verification regarding the correctness of the claims now made before this Court and thereby attack the findings, and conclusions of the Labour Court. The submissions that are sought to be raised in the form of reply-affidavit and any advanced at the time of arguments were not even thought of as a challenge to the very award even at the time of filing of the writ petition. Consequently, in my view, it is not given to the petitioner/management to attack the award of the Labour Court on grounds either advanced or on materials which were never placed before the said Court at the appropriate point of time. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution, is concerned with any error apparent on the face of the record and the correctness of the award vis-avis the said infirmity cannot be tested with reference to plea and materials now sought to be urged and introduced at the time of hearing."

3. This Court, in the above decision, has categorically held that the documents which have not been marked before the Labour Court, cannot be introduced for the first time before the High Court, more so, the appellant/Management is a private Management.

4. The respondent-employee was charge-sheeted for serious misconduct in terms of the Standing Orders in Clause 14-3(g), 9(h) and (i). Not satisfied with the explanation of the respondent/employee, domestic enquiry was conducted on various dates commencing from 27.12.2023 and as many as 27 sittings were conducted and during the domestic enquiry, the employee was given an opportunity to put forth his defence. The Enquiry Officer submitted report and based on the report, and after giving due opportunity to the employee, he was dismissed from service on 18.04.2015. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, an industrial d