The court emphasized the necessity of a proper inquiry before termination and the management's right to present evidence post-inquiry issues.

JUDGMENT

The 2^nd respondent was a workman at the institution/jewellery represented by the petitioner herein. The 2^nd respondent complained that he was denied employment by the management, whereas the management took the stand that the 2^nd respondent was terminated on the basis of an alleged theft committed by him. The Government referred the dispute for consideration by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad. The Tribunal by the impugned award at Ext.P1 found that there was no proper enquiry conducted in the matter, and there was a denial of employment to the workman. An amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation, and in the alternative, to reinstate the workman with continuity in service. It is seeking to challenge this award that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.

2. Heard S.Ranjit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.N.Haridas, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is to the effect that the Tribunal did not afford a reasonable opportunity for adducing evidence to prove the misconduct of the workman, that the evidence adduced was only with reference to the holding of enquiry, that once the preliminary issue was found against the management the Tribunal ought to have permitted evidence to be adduced by the Management on the larger issue. The petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P.

Mundhe [1975 (2) SCC 661]

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent would contend that there is no illegality in issuing a composite order relying on the judgment of this Court in Cherpu Service Coop. Bank v. Industrial Tribunal [1979 KHC 447]

5. I have considered the rival contentions and connected records. A reading of the impugned award at Ext.P1 would show that the Tribunal has considered whether the workman was terminated after a proper enquiry. The fact that the evidence adduced by the management was only for proving the nature of the enquiry is also recorded in paragraph 28 of the award. Thus, the findings in Ext.P1 were essentially as regards the preliminary issue as to whether there was an enquiry in accordance with law. The procedure to be adopted once it is found that there was no proper domestic enquiry is laid down by the Apex Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd. (supra) as under:-

“22. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion 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. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the labour court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication.”

Thus, once it is found that the enquiry was not proper, the management is to be permitted to adduce evidence on the larger issue before the Tribunal