9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned judgments and orders is on the ground that the petitioner-employer was not given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of disciplinary action by the petitioner against the respondents, after the Labour Court had held that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer were not based on legal and acceptable evidence and hence, were perverse. 5. The facts, in brief, relevant for the decision are that the complaint came to be filed by the respondent contending that on false reports, charge sheets for alleged misconduct came to be issued against the respondents. Pursuant to the enquiries conducted not in fair and proper manner and not in compliance of the principles of natural justice, and on the basis of the reports of the Enquiry Officer, the punishment of dismissal from services was imposed for the alleged misconduct. The complaints were contested by the petitioner denying all the allegations against the petitioner and justifying the action taken against the respondents. The Labour Court by its preliminary order held that the inquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the complainants led ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court cannot be sustained. It was also submitted that the occasion for request of exercise of the right to lead evidence subsequent to the finding of the Labour Court regarding to the Domestic Enquiry being vitiated, does not arise once, specific pleadings in that regard are made in the written statement itself. It is for the Tribunal to afford opportunity to the employer once, it finds the Domestic Enquiry to be vitiated, to lead necessary evidence in support of the charge of misconduct and the punishment imposed. The Labour Court, in the case in hand, having not followed the well established principles of law in this regard, the impugned judgments are contrary to the rulings of the Apex Court referred to above and hence, are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent, placing reliance in the decision of the learned Single Judge in the matter of Chandrika Prasad Mishra v. Shree Babulnath Mandir Charties and another reported in 2000 Lab 1C 1677 has submitted that the facts of the case clearly disclose that the petitioner had not availed the opportunity to lead evidence after the Labour Court had held that the findings arrived at by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s procedure because this opportunity of leading evidence is being sought by the management only as an alternative plea and not as an admission of illegality in its domestic inquiry. At the same time, it is also of advantage to the workmen inasmuch as they will be put to notice of the fact that the management is likely to adduce fresh evidence, hence, they can keep their rebuttal or other evidence ready. This procedure also eliminates the likely delay in permitting the management to make belated application whereby the proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal could get prolonged. In our opinion, the procedure laid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal's case is just and fair. .......... For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal (1984) 64 FJR 37 is the correct law on the point. In the present case, the appellant employer did not seek permission to lead evidence until after the Labour Court had held that its domestic enquiry was vitiated. Applying the aforestated principles to these facts, we are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellant, hence, this appeal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclose a specific prayer for framing of any other issue. However, it is always to be remembered that framing of issue is primarily the function of the Court and it is not for the party to make prayer in that regard. The issues are to be framed based on the pleadings of the parties. Merely, because the party does not pray for framing of an issue, the Court is not absolved of its duty of framing the issues, which otherwise arise from the pleadings of the parties. This does not mean that the parties are forbidden from rendering necessary assistance to the Court in framing of issues. However, it is primarily the duty of the Court to frame issues, based on the pleadings. Viewed from this angle, mere absence of the prayer to frame issue cannot result in any prejudice to the petitioner. The Apex Court in Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia and others reported in, 2001 AIR SCW 90, has ruled that an obligation is cast on the Court to read the plaint/petition and written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties the material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. The issues shall be framed and record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Labour Court that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. It cannot be disputed that once it is held that the Domestic Enquiry has been conducted in fair and proper manner and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, that by itself would not lead to conclusion that the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer were also perverse. Much to the contrary, the finding to that effect would be specifically required by the Labour Court. Once it is stated by the petitioner in the written statement that he craves leave to substantiate the charges of misconduct by leading proper evidence and to justify the final action, in case enquiry is to be held vitiated for non compliance of principles of natural justice or otherwise and considering the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding the reading and (Understanding of the pleadings. It is to be held that the petitioner had conveyed its intention to the Labour Court to lead evidence in case the Labour court comes to the conclusion that the inquiry was vitiated either on account of non compliance of the procedure or for violating the principles of natural justice or the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose of Chandrikaprasad's case inasmuch as, there was no request made by the petitioner in the course of arguments for allowing the petitioner to lead evidence in case the Labour Court holds that the findings of the Enquiry officer to be perverse nor, the issue in that regard was requested to be tried as preliminary issue. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner could have certainly drawn attention of the Labour Court at the time of framing issues that the issue in relation to whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer to be perverse, ought to have been tried as preliminary issue. It is also a matter of record that on completion of the evidence led by the petitioner in answer to the evidence, led by the respondent, the petitioner had filed purshis closing its evidence. The impugned order also does not disclose any request having been made by the petitioner to the Labour Court in the course of arguments for reserving its right to lead evidence in support of the charges of misconduct and punishment imposed, in case the Labour Court holds the findings of the Enquiry Officer to be perverse. However, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in spite of thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur Court at the time of holding of the enquiry in relation to the point as to whether the Domestic Enquiry was in accordance with the principles of natural justice or not. But, having not done so, apparently, the right of the employer to lead evidence in support of the charges and punishment imposed, once the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse, cannot be denied to the employer, and more particularly, when denial of such right has resulted in prejudice to the petitioner. 15. It was also sought to be contended on behalf of the respondents that the plea that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to lead evidence after the said findings of the Enquiry Officer being held to be perverse, was not specifically raised in the revision application before the Industrial Court. However, the ground (C) of the revision application specifically refers to the point as to improper framing of issues resulting in miscarriage of justice and reference to the decisions of the Apex Court in Bharat Forge Company Ltd's case. Certainly, the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Forge Company Ltd's case is regarding the employers right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
