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.

JUDGMENT :

S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Under assail is the common order dated 17.07.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.7465 to 7469 of 2013.

2. The present intra-Court appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent have been instituted by the Management against workmen. The workmen entered into a strike, which resulted in issuance of a show cause notice by the appellant - Management on 11.05.2011. The workmen were suspended from service and a charge memorandum came to be issued. A domestic enquiry was conducted and the workmen participated in the process of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved and accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the second show cause notice was issued to the workmen on 17.08.2011. The explanations submitted by the workmen on the findings of the Enquiry Officer were rejected and punishment of removal from service was imposed on the respondents / workmen on 20.08.2011. Aggrieved, the workmen raised industrial disputes in I.D.Nos.33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of 2011 on the file of the Labour Court, Pondicherry. The Labour Court allowed the industrial disputes, which resulted in the filing of the writ proceedings by the Management under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ Court confirmed the award passed by the Labour Court and thus, the present intra-Court appeals have been filed.

3. The issues to be determined mainly in the present intra-Court appeals are : (i) whether the Labour Court failed to decide the fairness of the enquiry as a preliminary issue for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the Management in the present case to let in additional evidence, since they had stated specifically in their written statement that, in the event of holding that the enquiry is unfair, they would let in additional evidence before the Labour Court; and (ii) If such an opportunity has been denied to the Management, whether the matter is to be remanded back to the Labour Court to provide an opportunity to the Management to let in additional evidence.

4. At the first instance, this Court has considered the longevity of the litigation, which undoubtedly caused prejudice to the interest of the workmen. The matter is pending from the year 2011 and the learned counsel for the respondents workmen would submit that they are not gainfully employed even now, but they are doing some day-to-day jobs in order to maintain their livelihood.

5. Mr.S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Management would submit that these workmen are paid 17-B wages throughout the proceedings and therefore, no prejudice caused to the workmen on account of the longevity of litigation. Under these circumstances, this Court thought fit to consider the legal issues raised by the Management, which are of important regarding the procedures to be followed by the Labour Court.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would mainly contend that in the written statement filed before the Labour Court, the appellant Management, in clear terms, reserved their right to let in additional evidence in the event of Labour Court arriving at a conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair manner. Relying on the said statement made by the Management in the written statement, he would submit that a valuable opportunity contemplated under law for the Management to let in additional evidence was denied.

7. To substantiate the said statement, he would rely on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case o