THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2024, THE COURT ON 09.06.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 award in I.D. No.28/2020 on the file of the Labour Court, Kollam.

The brief facts of the case are that:-

The petitioner/workman was terminated from the services of the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, he was terminated without holding any domestic enquiry and without the charges against him being established in a manner known to the law. It is the case of the petitioner that he was terminated based on a finding that he was involved in a case of sexual harassment, and if the petitioner had to be terminated on such an allegation, a proper domestic enquiry ought to have been conducted. Therefore, the petitioner initiated proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1947 Act) and, owing to failure of the process of conciliation, the petitioner exercised his option to file an application before the Labour Court, Kollam, under Section 2A (2) of the 1947 Act, (Section 2A(2) of the 1947 Act permits the adjudication of a dispute by the Labour Court without there being an order of reference under Section 10 of the 1947 Act in the case of termination and after three months from the date of initiation of proceedings before the Conciliation officer.)

The Tribunal, on a consideration of the matter, found that in the absence of a domestic enquiry, the petitioner could not have been terminated based on the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee regarding the allegation of sexual harassment and therefore directed as follows:-

“In the result, this Industrial Dispute is allowed by way of remand.

(i) The matter is remanded back to the management to conduct the enquiry as per the law.

(ii) The worker shall be given adequate opportunity to defend himself.

(iii) The management shall initiate steps within three months from the date of this order.”

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.P6 award is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that on finding that there was no domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner, the Labour Court ought to have directed reinstatement of the petitioner, and the order remanding the matter to the Management for conducting an enquiry as per law cannot be justified. The learned counsel would submit that this position is settled in the light of the law laid down in Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd and others v. Management and others, (1973) 1 SCC 813. The learned counsel specifically referred to the findings in paragraph 32 of the aforesaid judgment to buttress his contention. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgments in United Planters Association of Southern India v. K.G. Sangameswaran and another; (1997) 4 SCC 741 and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh ; (1972) 1 SCC 595 in support of the same contention.

The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent does not seriously dispute the proposition that when the Labour Court concluded that no domestic enquiry was held, the Labour Court ought to have proceeded to conduct an enquiry by itself by allowing the Management to prove its charges against the employee. It is submitted that in the case of the petitioner, he was a daily wage employee, and as such, the law does not contemplate holding of a domestic enquiry before discharge. However, he points out with reference to Ext.P5 that the Management had contended before the Tribunal that if at all the Tribunal concludes that no proper domestic enquiry was held, the Management may be allowed to prove its charges. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court , (1999) 1 SCC 517. He submits that the Supreme Court in Neeta Kaplish (supra) had referred to all earlier judgments, including the judgments in Del