The denial of a preliminary issue on domestic inquiry fairness constitutes legal error against established Supreme Court principles.

Versus Shri Ravi Rana …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the petitioneCr: Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Chetan h Viraj Sharma, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the Horder passed by the learned Labour Court dated 09.06.2022 (Annexure P-

7), in terms whereof an application filed by the petitioner under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing of additional Issue to the effect that as to whether Domestic Enquiry conducted by the Employer was a fair Enquiry, has been rejected.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent-workman has preferred a claim petition which is pending before learned Labour Court. In terms of the claim petition, the workman has assailed his termination and prayed for his reinstatement with consequential benefits. Reply filed to the claim petition by the employer/petitioner is inter alia to the effect that the services of the petitioner were terminated after holding of enquiry as per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Himachal uPradesh Rules, 1973 as amended from time to time and due process was followed in the course of holding of the enquiry and the workman was also heard.

3. During the pendency of these proceedings, an application was filedh by the present petitioner/employer under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Cogde of Civil Procedure, for framing of an additional Issue in terms of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Cooper Engineering Limited vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe (1975 AIR 1900, that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication, the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice, however, no such Issue stood framed and accordingly a prayer was made that an Issue be framed with regard to the fairness of the domestic enquiry.

4. Said application has been rejected in terms of the impugned order by the learned Labour Court by returning the following findings:-

“In my humble opinion, the framing of preliminary issue regarding fairness of enquiry in the absence of affording more opportunities to the parties to lead the evidence shall be an abuse of the process of the administration of justice. The present application has been filed at very belated stage. No purpose shall be served. Rather the litigation between the parties shall be dragged for endless movements. The case is listed for recording the evidence of the respondent since 24.3.2021. It would be appropriate to ask both the parties to lead their evidence in support of issues g already framed by this Court. Therefore, this Court/Tribunal is of the opinion to try and decide the matter in controversy on merits, rather than allowing any of the parties to shortcut method. In my humble opinion there are ample grounds to decide the matter on merits. Such being the situation, the application filed by the application deserves for dismissal and accordingly the same is dismissed. It be tagged with the main case file after completion.”

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents appended with the petitioner as well as the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The prayer of the petitioner for framing of an additional Issue with regard to the validity of the enquiry was required to be allowed by the learned Labour Court in terms of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

6. Ho