Labour Law Reporter

2023 LLR 158
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, J.
W.P. No. 20615/2018 and
W.P. Nos. 24231/2018 & 688/2020,
Dt/– 21-6-2022

ENQUIRY – Preliminary issue on fairness of enquiry – Scope of – Management terminated the services of workman after holding enquiry and proving guilt against him – Workman raised an industrial dispute challenging termination order – Evidence of workman was recorded -Management moved an application praying for framing issue on fairness of enquiry and deciding the same as a preliminary issue – Labour Court rejected that application – Management challenged that order of Labour Court in writ petition – Held, settled law is that when there is an objection raised by workmen that domestic enquiry conducted by Management was not fair or proper, Labour Court is to decide that issue first as a preliminary issue – Since evidence of workman has been recorded prior to filing of application by management, it is open to Labour Court to re-appreciate the evidence already let in by both parties during domestic enquiry and also the procedure adopted by the Management therein for the limited purpose – No doubt the Labour Court can ask the parties to let in evidence – Rejection of application, without exercising due procedure is not sustainable – Evidence already recorded or any further evidence which is going to be supplied by Management can only be treated as evidence for limited purpose whether the domestic enquiry was fair enough or not and not for purpose of deciding the Industrial Dispute on merits – Conduct of Management especially the Enquiry Officer who conducted domestic enquiry shall not influence the mind of Labour Court in deciding issue – Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Paras 10 to 15

R. Suresh Kumar, J.–1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order dated 24.07.2018 made in I.A. No. 217 of 2018 in I.D. No. 36 of 2016 passed by the II Additional Labour Court at Chennai and consequently direct the II Additional Labour Court at Chennai to eschew the evidence let in by the respondent on merits while deciding the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue.

2. The respondent was an employee of the petitioner Management and he raised an Industrial Dispute against the petitioner Management in I.D. No. 36 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai. In the said I.D., it seems that the Labour Court had permitted the respondent herein who was the employee who filed the I.D. to let in evidence and accordingly, he was examined in chief as W.W.1 and exhibits were marked. When it was posted for cross-examination of the said witness, i.e., W.W.1, the Management by raising an objection that when the employee raised a dispute with regard to the fairness of the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer, that issue has to be decided as the preliminary issue by the Labour Court and without deciding the fairness or otherwise of the domestic enquiry, the Labourt Court cannot proceed to record evidence to be let in by both parties as that procedure is impermissible in view of catena of decisions in this regard. Therefore, in that context, the petitioner Management has moved an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 217 of 2018 in I.D. No. 36 of 2016 to eschew the evidence, i.e., examination-in-chief recorded from W.W.1 on behalf of the employee.

3. The said Interlocutory Application having been considered was rejected through the order dated 24.07.2018 which is impugned in this writ petition.

4. Mr. R. Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that though the Labour Court is having enormous power under section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act [in short “the Act”] to act as a Civil Court for recording evidence of both parties to arrive at a conclusion, such an exercise would be possible for the Labour Court only if it does not satisfy that the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer was not fair. Unless and until such a conclusion is reached as a preliminary issue when the domestic enquiry is specifically objected by the employee who raised the I.D., the Labourt Court must first look into that preliminary issue and after giving its finding as to the fairness or otherwise of the domestic enquiry, then only it can proceed to record evidence, if it desires to do so.

5. However, in the case in hand though such an objection was raised by the employee as to the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner management without deciding that issue and without giving any finding to that effect, since the Labour Court proceeded to record the evidence of the workmen witness, i.e., W.W.1, the Management was triggered to file the objection. That is the reasoning why the present I.A. was filed to eschew the evidence which was recorded on behalf of the employee and that was rejected by stating that preliminary enquiry is indispensable to decide regarding the fairness of the domestic enquiry. But the case in hand falls into a different situation where the workmen was already examined as W.W.1 and exhibits were marked. When it was posted for cross examination of W.W.1, now the Management have come forward with the petition to eschew the evidence of W.W.1. Therefore, on that ground the Labour Court rejected the plea raised by the petitioner and passed orders in the Interlocutory Application filed by the Management. Therefore the reasoning given for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner management as well as the procedure adopted by the Labout Court is not in consonance either under section 11 or on the basis of catena of decisions in this regard where the law has been settled. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court against the impugned order.

6. Per contra, Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, who is the workmen made a submission stating that under section 11 of the Act at any stage evidence can be recorded by the Labour Court and this has been reiterated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Lakshmidevamman (smt) and another , (2001) 5 SCC 433. Therefore, whether it is the preliminary stage or thereafter if the Labour Court wants to get more evidence or additional evidence to arrive at a conclusion not necessarily be the merits of the case but also for a conclusion with regard to the preliminary issue as to the fairness of the domestic enquiry. Even for that purpose also such kind of evidences can be let in for which parties were permitted to let in the evidence, he contended. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent wants to sustain the order impugned of the Labour Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

8. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Management whenever there is an objection raised by the workmen, who raised the Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court stating that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Manager was not fair or proper, it is the duty of the Labour Court to decide that issue first as a preliminary issue. This position has already been well settled in number of decisions.

9. In this case also, the said objection had been raised by the respondent employee who was the petitioner before the Labour Court and when such a preliminary issue was raised as to the fairness of the domestic enquiry, in order to answer the said question it is open to the Labour Court to re-appreciate the evidence already let in by both parties during the domestic enquiry and also the procedure adopted by the Management in conducting the domestic enquiry and in this regard for the limited purpose if any particular evidence has to be appreciated or re-appreciated for which something has to be elucidated from the parties only for the limited purpose, no doubt the Labour Court can ask the parties to let in evidence.

10. However, in the present case without expressing any opinion about the fairness of the domestic enquiry since the Labour Court proceeded to record evidence such an objection had come from the Management who filed the Interlocutory Application as stated above.

11. When such an objection had come, it should have been clarified by the Labour Court that only to decide the preliminary issue as to the fairness of the domestic enquiry such a move has been taken by the Labour Court to have the limited enquiry for which the parties were permitted to let in evidence and not to go ahead with the merits of the main Industrial Dispute which was raised by the workmen.

12. No such clarification or declaration of the intention of the Court has been made as nothing has been available in the impugned order except the reason as has been stated above that because already W.W.1 was examined and the exhibits were marked, at this juncture the Management since have come forward with the prayer to eschew the evidence of W.W.1, that cannot be accepted and accordingly it was rejected.

13. The said reasons cited by the Labour Court in the considered opinion of this Court may not be justifiable.

14. Any how the evidence now have been recorded from the employee side who was examined as W.W.1 and in this case, it is open to the petitioner to cross-examine the said witness, i.e., W.W.1 but the evidence let in by the employee or any further evidence which is going to be supplied by the Management can only be treated as evidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to the preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was fair enough or not and not for the purpose of deciding the Industrial Dispute on merits.

15. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following orders:

That the evidence whatever has been recorded from the employee's side by examining W.W.1 or any other evidence further the Labour Court wants to get it from both parties, those evidence shall be only for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to the fairness of the domestic enquiry and not beyond that.

It is made clear that based on these evidence now recorded or going to the recorded for deciding the preliminary issue as to the fairness of the domestic enquiry no decision can be taken by the Labour Court on the merits of the main I.D. raised by the employee.

It is further made clear that any observation made by the Labour Court in the order impugned as to the conduct of the Management especially the Enquiry Officer who conducted the domestic enquiry shall not influence the mind of the Labour Court in deciding the issue as stated above.

16. With these observations, clarifications and also the directions, this Court feels that the writ petition can be given a quietus. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.