Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
M/s. Manitou Equipment India Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
Writ C. No. 17861 Of 2023
Decided On : 25-05-2023
Labour Court - Industrial Disputes - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947, Section 6 E (2) (b); Industrial Disputes Act, Section 4K - The judgment discusses the legal provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947 and the Industrial Disputes Act, specifically focusing on the duty of the Labour Court to grant an opportunity to the employer to lead evidence in support of the charges once the domestic inquiry is found to be illegal and arbitrary. The court refers to the judgments of the Supreme Court in M.L. Singla Vs. Punjab National Bank and another, 2019 (160)FLR 80 and Kurukshetra University Vs. Prithvi Singh, 2018-II-LLJ-257 (SC) to emphasize the obligation of the Labour Court to allow the employer to prove the charges after an illegal domestic inquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturing company, filed a writ petition challenging an award reinstating three workers with back wages. The workers were dismissed based on charges of misconduct, and the Labour Court found the dismissal to be illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought to lead evidence to prove the charges, but the Labour Court did not grant the opportunity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Labour Court committed manifest illegality by not directing the petitioner to lead evidence in support of the charges, as the petitioner had offered to do so. The impugned award was set aside, and the Labour Court was directed to conduct the proceedings expeditiously and conclude them within six months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Labour Court should have granted the petitioner the opportunity to lead evidence in support of the charges after finding the domestic inquiry to be illegal and arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the employer offers to lead evidence before the Labour Court, the duty is cast upon the Labour Court to direct the employer to do so, as per the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in relevant judgments.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned award was set aside. The Labour Court was directed to conduct the proceedings expeditiously and conclude them within six months.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Atul Mehra and Sri Vivek Ratan Agrawal for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent no.s 1, 2 and 4 and Sri Man Mohan Singh for respondent No.3
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award was passed at the behest of two workers while only one of the workers has been arrayed as a respondent and prays that he may be permitted to implead Sri Jitendra Singh as respondent No.5.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents including Sri Man Mohan Singh do not object to the prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to incorporate Sri Jitendra Singh as respondent No.5 in the array of the respondents in the memo of the petition during the course of day.
4. With the consent of the parties the petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.
5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 21.2.2023 published on 17.4.2023 whereby the claim of respondent No.s 3 to 5 -workman has been allowed and the workman has been directed to be reinstated in service along with back wages.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-company i.e. M/s. Manitou Equipment India Private Limited is a manufacturer of heavy equipment consisting of telehandlers, backhoeloaders, skid, steer loaders, aerial work platforms etc. for various sectors including construction, infrastructure, quarrying, mining, shipping, transportation, refineries, energy, manufacturing industries etc. Its factory/plant is situated at plot No.22, Udyog Vihar Greater Nodia, Post Office Surajpur Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P. The facts leading to filing the present petition is that respondent No.s 3 to 5 workman were appointed in 2006 on the post of Assembler and had worked continuously. It is alleged that on 7..8.2019 respondent No.s 3 to 5 indulged in major and gross misconduct of misbehaving with their Supervisor by assaulting/manhandling him and threatening/abusing him in derogatory and un-parliamentary language while on duty besides misbehavior and with regard to aforesaid misconduct respondent No.s 3 to 5 were suspended from service on 14.8.2009 and were served with charge sheet on 19.8.2019.
7. Another dispute between the trade union of the petitioner wherein conciliation proceedings were already underway before the Conciliation Officer/ Assistant Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Gautam Buddha Nagar when the proceedings against the respondents were initiated. It is further stated that the respondents -workmen did not file any reply to the charge sheet and the domestic inquiry was conducted ex-parte and the charges against the respondents were proved and consequently they were dismissed from the services by means of order dated 3.3.2020.
8. It is further stated that considering that in the matter conciliation proceedings were pending the petitioner moved an application under Section 6 E (2) (b) of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947 before the Conciliation Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.P. and submitted that the said application was never decided or not disapproved by the said authority and respondent No.s 3 to 5 raised industrial dispute with regard to their dismissal order dated 3.3.2020 before the Labour Court, U.P. Noida under Section 4K of Industrial Disputes Act. The said case was registered as Adjudication Case No.337/221. The petitioner was duly served the notice and put in appearance and opposed the claim of the respondents-workmen, and evidence was filed by the petitioner and after statements were recorded by both the parties and also having cross examined the witnesses appearing before the Labour Court, by means of the impugned award the order of dismissal was held to be illegal and arbitrary and the claim of respondent No.s 3 to 5 workmen was allowed with a direction to the petitioner to reinstate them in service along with back-wages.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assa
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has a duty to grant the employer the opportunity to lead evidence in support of the charges once the domestic inquiry is foun....
An employer's right to lead evidence before a Labour Court following an invalid domestic enquiry is not automatic. It must be explicitly requested at an early stage, such as in the written statement.....
Fairness of disputed domestic enquiry must be decided as preliminary issue by Labour Court to enable parties to adduce additional evidence if enquiry held unfair.
In a situation where the domestic enquiry is found to be vitiated, only the evidence adduced before the labour court should be considered to establish the charges. The evidence from the domestic enqu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
