Management of Turbo Energy Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—The Management of Turbo Energy Limited (hereinafter referred to as ''the Management''), which has

unsuccessfully challenged the Award dated February 4, 2008 in I.D. No. 165/2004, has preferred this Writ Appeal against the order dated

November 21, 2008 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10349/2008.

By the aforesaid preliminary Award, the Labour Court, Vellore held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the second respondent-

workman was not fair and proper and directed the Management to prove the charges by letting in evidence before the Labour Court.

The learned single Judge, having noticed that there is allegation of obtaining signature in blank papers by the enquiry officer and as admittedly,

the copies of the number of Management Exhibits, such as Exhibits M-11 to M-14, were not furnished to the workman, held that the Labour

Court was justified in giving a finding that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the learned single Judge affirmed the Award of the Labour

Court.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Management submitted that non-submission of those documents to the workman, had not

caused any prejudice to him. He relied on the proceedings of the enquiry officer to show that the copies of those Exhibits were shown to the

workman for perusal, who read and understood the contents. According to the learned Counsel for the Management, the workman, having not

requested to cross-examine the authors of the reports Exhibits, no prejudice was caused to him and that the Labour Court failed to consider the

aforesaid aspect and merely gave a finding that the copies of the Exhibits were not supplied. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decisions

of the Supreme Court in the case of Debotosh Pal Choudhary Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, , in the case of Om Prakash Mann Vs.

Director of Education (BASIC) and Others, and in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and Another Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, . In those

judgments, the Supreme Court held that till it is shown that non-supply of documents has caused prejudice to the employee, no violation of the

principles of natural justice can be alleged and non-supply of documents can become fatal only if it has caused prejudice to the person concerned.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Management and perused the records.

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the reports made by certain persons were shown as Exhibits M-11 to M-14, namely Mr. M.

Ranganathan (Exhibit M-10), Mr. M. Pandiarajan (Exhibit M-11), Mr. Anantharaman (Exhibit M-12), Mr. Narasiman (Exhibit M-13) and Mr. P.

Ramasamy (Exhibit M-14). In these reports, it was shown that complaints were received that the second respondent-charge-workman was

needlessly disturbing the co-workers while they were working. It has not been disputed on behalf of the Management that the copies of those

reports were not supplied to the charge-workman, nor the Management informed the workman that it was not possible to submit the reports, and

therefore, to contact a particular Department for perusal of the reports (Exhibits M-11 to M-14). In the absence of any such offer given by the

Management, it cannot be accepted as gospel truth that the enquiry officer, of his own, writes that the documents were perused and the workman

read and understood the same. There is no evidence on record to show that the workman has signed at any place in the enquiry before the enquiry

officer stating that he read and understood the contents of Exhibits M-11 to M-14.

In this context, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of India (UOI)and Others, . That

was a case of dismissal of a Government servant after departmental enquiry. The Supreme Court, having noticed failure to furnish copies of

relevant documents and statement of witnesses and that the examination of 38 witnesses and 118 documents were running to hundreds of pages,

held that the employee had been denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the order of dismissal is violative of Article 311(2) of the

Constitution of India.

In the present case, it will be evident that the Management relied on four reports submitted by four different persons, i.e. Exhibits M-11 to M-

Even if it is presumed that such reports were shown on a particular date, it cannot be accepted that the workman will go through the same and

would have immediately understood those four reports on that particular day of enquiry and will be in a position to defend himself in the enquiry

properly. We are of the view that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court rightly came to a definite conclusion that the workman was

prejudiced by not supplying the copies of the reports, which were shown as Exhibits M-11 to M-14, as affirmed by the learned single Judge.

In this Writ Appeal, as we find that the Labour Court has merely declared by the preliminary Award that the enquiry was not proper and

directed the Management to produce all the evidence to prove the charges, it requires no interference by this Court.

There being no merits, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.