J.B. Sanjeeva Rao vs Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court, Warangal and Another

Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.—In this writ petition the question that arises for decision is :

"Whether the Labour Court after holding that the domestic enquiry is invalid or vitiated can suo motu direct the management to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charges without there being any request either in writing or oral in that behalf."

The brief facts relevant in this behalf are : Pursuant to the dispute raised by the petitioner in the wake of his dismissal from service, the Labour Court-first respondent herein observing that the petitioner during the course of domestic enquiry was not given the required opportunity, besides referring to undisputed fact that the enquiry report was not supplied to hi, rendered a finding that the enquiry was in valid. While so holding, the Labour Court afforded the management with an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner. This part of the order affording the management with the opportunity to so adduce evidence is the subject matter of challenge in these proceedings.

At the out-set, it is to be notice that u/s 14 of the Industrial Disputes Act the Labour Court has to enquiry into the referred dispute and make its report within six months from the date of commencement of the enquiry. While so conducting the enquiry, the Labour Court is endowed with all the powers available under the Code of Civil Procedure. After receipt of the pleadings from both sides, the Labour Court first adverts to find out whether the domestic enquiry, if conducted, was proper. In case the finding is positive, the Labour Court proceeds to scrutinise the adequacy or otherwise of the punishment u/s 11-A of the industrial Disputes Act. However, if the finding is in the negative, say the domestic enquiry is invalid or vitiated, the management is at liberty to make a request to adduce further evidence to sustain the order of punishment. The crucial issue here is, whether in the absence of any request from the management the Labour Court can direct the management to adduce such evidence.

Turning to the case law on the subject, it is to be seen that in The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Management and Others, . The Supreme Court held :

"27 (8). An employer, who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask for it at the appropriate stage."

To the same effect is the decision in The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe, . It is thus, clear that in order to avail the opportunity, the employer has to make a request, oral or written, at appropriate stage. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Vs. Ludh Budh Singh, . The Supreme Court categorically held that it is not the function of the Labour Court to suo motu call upon the management to adduce evidence to justify the action in imposing punishment.

Again in Shambu Nath v. Bank of Baroda 1983 LABIC 1697. The Supreme Court held :

"........... in a reference u/s 10 of the Act after the workman had been punished pursuant to a finding of guilt recorded against him in the domestic enquiry there is no question of the management filing any application for permission to lead further evidence in support of the charge or charges framed against the workman, for the defect in the domestic enquiry is pointed out by the workman in his written claim statement filed in the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after the reference had been received and the management has the opportunity to look into that statement before it files its written statement of defence in the enquiry before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and could make the request for the opportunity in the written statement itself."

Therefore, if the management wants to adduce further evidence, it should necessarily ask for affording with an opportunity in the written statement itself or in any case it can make a request immediately after the Labour Court finds that the domestic enquiry is invalid or vitiated - the appropriate stage.

However, in a later decision in Desh Raj Gupta Vs. Industrial Tribunal IV, U.P., Lucknow and another, the Supreme Court while dealing with the contention that there was no request on behalf of the management to justify the order of punishment by adducing additional evidence and the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in asking the management to do so, held that by asking the respondent to justify the punishment by adducing additional evidence the Tribunal merely reminded the employer of his right and the employer promptly availed of the opportunity and that there is no illegality which could vitiate the award. However, it needs to be noticed that in that case the workman after such a reminder, so called, participated in the proceedings wherein further evidence was adduced and only after the matter ultimately turned out against him by affirming the order of punishment, he challenged the above said order of the Tribunal. In the instant case, the petitioner soon after passing of the order by the Tribunal affording the management with the opportunity, came forward with this writ petition. Apart from this distinguishing factual feature, this is a decision rendered by a Bench of two Judges and the earlier decision in Shambu Nath v. Bank of Baroda (Supra) rendered by a Bench of three Judges, was not cited before the later Bench. Therefore, I am of the view that the earlier decision governs, on all fours, the present proceedings and accordingly it is to be held that the Labour Court cannot suo motu direct the management to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charges in the absence of any request, either oral or written, on its behalf.

The decision in State Bank of India Vs. R.K. Jain and Others, does not deal with the present question and equally so is the other decision in Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Another, cited by the learned Counsel for the management. The decision in Rajendra Jha Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, District Dhanbad and Another, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the management is of no help to the management inasmuch as on the facts found therein there was an oral request from the management before the Labour Court for adducing evidence.

In the view taken that in the absence of any request from the management to adduce fresh evidence in support of the charges, the Labour Court has no power to suo motu permit the management to avail the opportunity of adducing fresh evidence, the order of the Labour Court to that extent is quashed and the Labour Court is directed to proceed ahead from the stage at which it was and pass orders according to law, keeping in view the present order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.