Telangana High Court
WP/2611/1999 of M/s. Spotnews (P) Limited, Vs The Honble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, on 29 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2611 of 1999 Between: M/s. Spotnews (P) Limited, Rep. by its Director, Sri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 2611 of 1999
Between:
M/s. Spotnews (P) Limited, Rep. by its Director, Sri Moturi VenkateswaraRao,Andhra Jyothi Buildings, P.B.No.420, Visakhapatnam.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Rep. by itsPresiding Officer, Visakhapatnam.
2 C.Navatha, D/o Prasada Rao, LIG-50, H.B. Colony, Visakhapatnam.
3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Incharge Labour, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue notice call for records and quash and set aside the ordermade by the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court,Visakhapatnam, in GR No2507, dt. 26-11-1998 in I.D.No.207 of 1996dt.30-11-1998 by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriateWrit or order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.NAGESWAR SREE
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash orderdated 30-11-1998 in I.D.No.207 of 1996 on the file of the IndustrialTribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam/respondent No.1 herein.Heard Sri P.Nageswara Sree, learned counsel for thepetitioner. No one appeared for the respondents.
By the impugned order, the respondent No.1 over ruled theobjections filed by the petitioner and allowed application filed byrespondent No.2 to permit her to adduce evidence in support of herallegations of victimization leading to her dismissal by the petitioner.
The petitioner is a company registered under the CompaniesAct, 1956. Respondent No.2 was an employee of the petitioner. Shewas faced with charge sheet dated 10-01-1995. The enquiry into thecharges was held. On the basis of the enquiry report, show causenotice dated 23-11-1995 was issued by the petitioner to therespondent No.2, proposing her dismissal from service. RespondentNo.2 filed her explanation on 11-12-1995. After considering herexplanation, she was dismissed from service by the petitioner byorder dated 01-02-1996. Thereafter, respondent No.2 raisedindustrial dispute under Section 2-A (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The said dispute was taken on file as
I.D.No.207 of 1998.
Respondent No.2 filed memo dated 26-11-1998, seekingpermission of respondent No.1 to adduce evidence to prove hervictimization by the management of the petitioner. The petitioner filedobjections to the said memo wherein it is inter alia stated that asdomestic enquiry was held and the entire record of enquiryproceedings was filed before respondent No.1, respondent No.2 is notentitled to adduce further evidence. Respondent No.1 by theimpugned order allowed the application of respondent No.2.
At the hearing, there is no representation for respondent No.2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the objections of thepetitioner were rejected purportedly on the judgments of the SupremeCourt, this Court and the Patna High Court. Respondent No.1observed that it can permit adducing of evidence at any stage whenthe allegations of victimization were made.
Section 11-A of the Act was interpreted by the Supreme Court i n The Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company[[1]], wherein it is inter alia held that if there has been no enquiry held bythe employer or if the enquiry is held to be defective, it is open to theemployer to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunaljustifying the order of discharge or dismissal.
In Lalla Ram v. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works
Limited[[2]], the Supreme Court held that in a case where findings ofmisconduct alleged against workman were properly arrived at and thedomestic enquiry was in no way vitiated, there can be no question ofvictimization or the management having a bios against the workman.
In Bank of Baroda v. G.Sriram and another[[3]], a DivisionBench of this Court held that if the industrial tribunal is satisfied thatdomestic enquiry leading to the dismissal of the workman fromservice is validly held, it is not open to the Tribunal to permit theworkman to lead any evidence regarding the same issue.
The ratio which could be culled out from the above mentionedjudgments is that before permitting the parties to let in freshevidence, the Labour Court or the Tribunal shall first examine whetherthe domestic enquiry was properly held or not. When once theLabour Court or the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry is properlyheld, the question of permitting the parties to let in fresh evidence andfurther examining the validity of the domestic enquiry does not arise. If, on the other hand, it is satisfied that the enquiry was not properlyheld then only the parties can be permitted to lead fresh evidence toarrive at a finding on the validity of the domestic enquiry. As held bythe Supreme Court in Lalla Ram (2 supra), in a case where thecharges of misconduct were properly proved, there can be no question of any victimization.
In my considered view, the Industrial Tribunal has not properlyapplied its mind in permitting respondent No.2 to adduce evidenceeven without going into the question whether the enquiry held by themanagement of the petitioner was valid or not. Unless it has goneinto the said question and passed an order giving reasons to hold thatthe enquiry was not properly held, it had no jurisdiction to permitrespondent No.2 to adduce evidence in support of her allegations ofvictimization.
Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law andis accordingly quashed. Respondent No.1 shall first examinewhether the domestic enquiry was validly held or not whereupondepending upon its decision, it shall proceed with the matter further inthe light of the observations contained herein above. RespondentNo.1 shall dispose of the ID within a period of three months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
29[th] December, 2008SKM
--------------------------------
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
[2]1978 LAB.I.C.716[3]2002 (6) ALD 671 (DB)