IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.2.2009 CORAM: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.5578 of 2000 ABT Parcel Service 10/13-15 Kalingarayan Street Ramnagar (Post) Coimbatore 641 009 .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Madurai. 2.Mr.V.Maduraiveeran .. Respondents Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in IA No.207/99 in ID No.104/95 and quash its order dated 04.2.2000. For Petitioner :: Mr. Karthik M/s T.S.Gopalan & Co. For Respondents :: Mr.S.Senthilnathan R2 O R D E R
The petitioner Management aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent Labour Court in I.A.No.207 of 1999 in ID.No.104 of 1995 dated 04.02.2000, the present writ petition has been filed.
2.The second respondent was dismissed from service by the petitioner Management on 18.11.1994. This was on the ground that as a Driver of the Cargo vehicle, he had accommodated passengers, thereby bringing the Company to a grave risk for being prosecuted by the authorities. Before the dismissal, the petitioner Management conducted an enquiry. When the second respondent raised a dispute before the Government Labour Officer, the conciliation could not end in any settlement. Therefore, he gave a failure report.
3. On the strength of the failure report, the petitioner filed a claim statement before the Labour Court. The Labour Court took the dispute in I.D.No.104 of 1995 and issued notice to the petitioner Management. The Petitioner Management filed a counter statement dated 14.2.1996. In the counter statement, they raised a plea in paragraph No.10 that in case the Labour Court decides the preliminary issues regarding the validity of the enquiry against them, they may be given permission to lead fresh evidence in accordance with law.
4.Thereafter the Management filed an Interim Application being I.A.No.207 of 1999 asking the Labour Court to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by them as a preliminary issues on its application dated 24.7.1999. The contesting respondent workman filed a counter dated 19.7.1999. It was the stand of the workman that all the issues can be heard together and there need not be any preliminary issue with reference to the domestic enquiry. They also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in M/S CIPAL LTD., AND OTHERS AND RIPU DAMAN BHANOT AND ANOTHER reported in 1999 (82) FLR PAGE 225. There the observation found in paragraph No.13 is to the effect that the Labour Court should decide all the issues together and shall not split the issues into preliminary or non-preliminary issues so that the procedure may come to an end at the earliest, was referred to. The Labour Court placing reliance upon those observation and also the Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A.No.2154 of 1999 dated 8.2.1999, which has since been reported in 2001-volume 1-LLJ page 881 (PATTARAISWAMY S vS. MGMT. OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD.), in paragraph No.24, it was stated that it was well within the discretion of the Tribunal to try or not to try a preliminary issue as regards the validity of the domestic enquiry.
5.Apparently, the said decision had not taken into account the earlier decision of this Court reported in MADURAI-DEVAKOTTAI TRANSPORT PRIVATE LTD., Vs LABOUR COURT, Madurai and another, reported in 1976 2 Labour Law Journal 447. In that Judgment, the Division Bench of this Court had observed as follows:
“Unfortunately, the second respondent does not appear either in person or by counsel. But it is clear that we have got to tell the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, to follow the proper procedure as envisaged by Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P.Mundhe, (1975-II L.L.J.379); (1975) 48 F.J.R.152. When as a result of a domestic enquiry, there is a dismissal or removal from service of a workman and the matter takes the shape of an industrial dispute, the Presiding Officer has first to see whether the domestic enquiry was properly held in accordance with the norms of the principles of natural justice and if there was any defect or violation of such principles of natural justice. Ofcourse, when this question itself is in controversy, the Presiding Officer will be justified in taking evidence confined to that question. The complaint before us is that, without adopting that course, and satisfying himself whether the domestic enquiry was proper in that sense, the Presiding Officer has called upon the parties to adduce evidence on the merits. If that is so, this will be erroneous. We direct the Presiding Officer to follow the procedure as laid down in Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P.Mundhe, (supra) before proceeding further. There will be an order accordingly. No costs.”
6.In the present case, the Management contended that if at this stage any evidence will have to be let in, that will be a time consuming process and the Management must know definitely whether the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is fair and proper. In case the issues are to be decided in favour of the Management, then there is no scope for further evidence. Since the proviso to section 11-A of the I.D.Act bar the Court from looking into any other material other than the material on record. They have also made an alternative plea that if the Labour Court should decide the preliminary issue against the Management, they must be permitted to lead fresh evidence.
7.Whether one likes it or not, the labour Court will have to follow the dictum of the Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd., Vs. P.P.Mundhe reported in 1975 (31) F.L.R. 188 which was referred to by the Division Bench Judgment in the case cited above. That is why the Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering’s case has forewarned the High Courts from entertaining any writ petition against preliminary orders and hs also permitted parties to come to the High Court after the final award.
8. In that view of the matter and in the light of the decision referred to above, the writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order of the Labour Court stands set aside. The first respondent Labour Court is hereby directed to decide the preliminary issue raised by the Management in terms of the I.A.No.207 OF 1999 in I.D.No.104 of 1995, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after notice to the parties and thereafter proceed to adjudicate the main dispute within a period of three months thereafter. The Labour Court shall give preference to the disposal of the I.D. as it is already 14 years old. However, the parties are allowed to bear their own cost.
rpa
Note:In case any records are summoned,
Registry is directed to return the same
immediately.
To
1.The Presiding Officer
Labour Court,
Madurai