ORDER
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is taken up for filial disposal with the consent of
parties.
3. The respondent was a conductor in K.S.R.T.C. While he was working as a conductor, the allegation against the respondent was that he did not issue tickets to 15 passengers despite collection of fare. There was a domestic enquiry and ultimately the respondent came to be dismissed from service. The respondent being aggrieved by the order of dismissal filed an application under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and passed an award directing reinstatement of the workman and also directed the petitioner to pay full back wages from the date of dismissal – 30-4-1999 till the date of reinstatement. The Labour Court also granted continuity of service. Aggrieved by this, the management has preferred this writ petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity was given for the management to lead evidence to prove the misconduct. It was further submitted that once the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and when the management requested to lead evidence to establish that the misconduct was proved, the Labour Court ought to have granted an opportunity to the management to prove the misconduct. The Labour Court at paragraph 8 of the award stated as follows:
“If the enquiry is set aside and again opportunity is given to the parties to lead evidence in support of the case regarding and incident alleged to have occurred in 1993 virtually it would be opening a pandora’s box without any purpose being achieved. Much water has flown from 1993 to till now and the stale matter cannot be reopened. In such a background, I find that no purpose would be served in giving opportunity to II party to lead evidence. Even if such an opportunity is given to the II party to rebuttal the evidence and also to substantiate the case of the I party will not be possible as he may not be in a position to bring witnesses of the said time. Hence, in this background the entire case as stated above is taken up for adjudication”.
5. Although the Labour Court may have been justified in stating that the management was responsible for the delay in conducting the enquiry, it was certainly not justified in rejecting the application made by the management to let in evidence to prove the misconduct. However, there cannot be any excuse for the management to take six years to complete the domestic enquiry. Whenever an opportunity is sought for leading the evidence on the question of misconduct, if the domestic enquiry is held to be not fair and proper, there is a duty cast on the Labour Court to permit the management to lead evidence on the misconduct. Having stated the position, no useful purpose would be served by admitting the writ petition.
6. The relief granted to the workman was that he shall be reinstated with back wages only from 1999, since the workman was dismissed in 1999. To put an end to this litigation once and for all, it would be appropriate not to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court.
7. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Time granted for reinstatement is six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Time granted for payment of back wages as stipulated in the award shall be three months from the date of receipt of this order.