9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a labour court must give an employer an opportunity to adduce evidence afresh if a domestic inquiry is found to violate principles of natural justice. 2. The duty of the labour court to announce its decision on the validity of the domestic inquiry to enable the employer to justify the dismissal. 3. The appropriate stage for the employer to request an opportunity to adduce evidence before the labour court. Summary: Issue 1: Opportunity to Adduce Evidence Afresh The Supreme Court addressed whether a labour court must provide an employer with an opportunity to adduce evidence afresh if a domestic inquiry is found to violate principles of natural justice. The Court held that the labour court is competent to take evidence of the parties and come to its own conclusion on the merits of the case. The labour court observed that no evidence regarding merits was led by the opponent before it, leading to the setting aside of the dismissal order and directing reinstatement with all back wages. Issue 2: Duty to Announce Decision on Validity of Domestic Inquiry The Court considered whether the labour court has a duty to announce its decision on the validity of the domestic inquiry to enable the employer to justify the dismissal. The Court referred to several precedents, including the cases of Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory v. Motipur Sugar Factory and Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, which established that if the domestic inquiry is found to be defective, the tribunal should give the employer an opportunity to prove the case by adducing evidence. The Court emphasized that it is the right of the management to sustain its order by adducing independent evidence before the tribunal. Issue 3: Appropriate Stage for Requesting Opportunity to Adduce Evidence The Court discussed the appropriate stage for the employer to request an opportunity to adduce evidence before the labour court. It was held that the labour court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic inquiry violated principles of natural justice. If the inquiry is found defective, the employer should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence. The Court clarified that the employer must request this opportunity during the pendency of the proceedings and before the trial has concluded. The Court also noted that it is not the function of the tribunal to invite the employer suo moto to adduce evidence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the labour court should first decide the validity of the domestic inquiry as a preliminary issue. If the inquiry is found defective, the employer should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence. In the present case, due to the long delay and the appellant's willingness to pay the entire salary of the workman up-to-date, the Court modified the relief to compensation instead of reinstatement. The appeal was dismissed with this modification, and no order as to costs was made.
|
