Torrent Pharmaceutical Ltd. vs Pradeep Kumar Sharma

Sujoy Paul, J.—This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order of the Labour Court dated 04.04.2012 whereby Labour Court has decided the question of validity of domestic enquiry against the petitioner / employer.

Shri D.K. Katare, Advocate for the petitioner, assailed this order by contending that workman was appointed by issuing an appointment order. Workman has admitted before the Labour Court that he is signatory to the contract of appointment and said appointment order contains a condition that in the event any dispute arises between the parties, it will be entertained within the territorial jurisdiction of Ahmedabad. In view of this condition of the appointment order, which was duly admitted by the workman, the Labour Court Gwalior had no authority, jurisdiction and competence to even decide this aspect. He submits that Labour Court should have decided the issue No.1 at the threshold and only after deciding issue of jurisdiction in favour of the workman it could have proceeded with the matter. In addition, it is submitted that Labour Court has erred in holding domestic enquiry as illegal. By taking this Court to inquiry report, it is argued that workman was afforded opportunity to participate in the enquiry but he on his own did not participate in the same. Thus, principle of natural justice were not violated and Labour Court had no occasion to interfere in the domestic enquiry. Reliance is placed on S.B.I. Vs. Hemant Kumar, , G.P. Dewangon Vs. State of M.P. and Others, . It is submitted that jurisdiction can be assumed by consent of parties. To bolster this submission, reliance is placed on New Moga Transport Company, through its Proprietor Krishanlal Jhanwar Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, .

Per Contra, Shri B.S. Bais, learned counsel for the workman submits that before passing the impugned order, a detailed order dated 04.01.2010 was passed, whereby Labour Court opined that question of jurisdiction will be decided along with other issues. The petitioner has not challenged this order and therefore, it has attained finality. He submits that jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and no interference is warranted against the decision on issue No.1. By placing reliance on The Cooper Engineering Limited Vs. Shri P.P. Mundhe, , it is submitted that in view of this judgment, the Labour Court has not committed any error in deciding the question of domestic enquiry as issue No.1. No interference is warranted in view of this judgment. Reliance is also place on unreported judgment of Division Bench dated 09.08.2010 passed in WP No. 7962/2010.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Although the petitioner has preferred application for granting permission to raise ground (G) by filing IA.5986/2014. This application cannot be allowed at this stage. So far question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, suffice it to say that Conciliation Officer and the Labour Court assumes jurisdiction as per provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is not in dispute that the workman was terminated while working at Gwalior only enquiry was conducted at Ahmedabad. Thus, even if in the appointment order it is mentioned that dispute will be subject to jurisdiction of Ahmedabad, it will not take away jurisdiction of the Conciliation officer and the Labour Court which is flowing from the Industrial Disputes Act. There cannot be any estoppel against law. Thus, said objection by no stretch of imagination will take away jurisdiction of the Labour Court. This view is already taken by this Court in German Remedies Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 1 and Others, . Even otherwise, the order dated 04.01.2010 whereby Labour Court directed that other issues will be decided simultaneously, is not put to challenge. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order impugned is bad in law because the question of jurisdiction is not decided by the Court below as preliminary issue. I find support in my view from para 22 of the judgment of Apex Court in P.P. Mundhe (Supra) it reads as under :-

"22. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the labour court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the labour court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the lower court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication."

A division Bench of this Court followed it in WP No. 7962/2010. Division Bench after following P.P. Mundhe opined as under :-

"As the Apex Court has specifically held that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award and it will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage, we are of the considered view that in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court we cannot interfere in the impugned order and dismiss this petition with liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue, in case the CGIT ultimately decides against the petitioner.

With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs."

In view of judgment in P.P. Mundhe (Supra) the Labour court has not committed any error of law in deciding the issue regarding validity of enquiry as issue No.1 / preliminary issue. The workman was working at Gwalior. He was subjected to disciplinary proceeding because of alleged misconduct at Gwalior. Termination order was served on him at Gwalior and therefore, it cannot be said that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the industrial dispute. In German Remedies (Supra) this court opined that because of misconduct which was alleged against the employee was related to the period when he was posted at Bhopal, Labour Court shall have jurisdiction ( para 12).

Considering the aforesaid, I find no jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Labour Court. Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution can be made only when order is passed by the court which does not have jurisdiction. This Court is not obliged to sit as an appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence. Even otherwise the conclusion drawn in para 8 of the Labour Court is plausible conclusion based on justifiable reason. The Labour Court opined that next date of domestic enquiry was fixed as 13.01.2004. In the said document (Annexure D/3) it is not mentioned that the next date is fixed for management evidence. Witness who entered the witness box on behalf of management admitted that on 13.01.2004 he had no authority to close the enquiry. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, Labour Court opined that domestic enquiry was not fair and legal. I find no reason to interfere on this plausible finding. The basic purpose to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to keep the courts below within the bounds of their authorities. Even wrong order is not liable to be interfered with as a matter of routine or on a drop of hat. This view is taken by Apex Court in Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, . In totality, no case is made out which warrants interference by this Court.

Petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed.