Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ekvira Nagri Pat-Sanstha Maryadit, an employer, challenged an order dated 07/09/2022 passed by the Labour Court, Amravati, rejecting its application (Exh.C-9) to conduct an enquiry or prove charges against the respondent employee, Sandeep Marotrao Pande, who had been removed from service without a prior domestic enquiry. The employer sought permission to lead evidence before the Labour Court to justify the removal. The Labour Court rejected the application on the ground that no enquiry was conducted before removal. The employer argued that it had a settled right to prove charges even if no enquiry was held, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd. v. The Motipur Sugar Factory (1965) 3 SCR 588, Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management (1973) 1 SCC 813, and State of Uttarakhand v. Sureshwati (2021) 3 SCC 108. The respondent contended that while the right was not disputed, the application must be filed at the earliest stage, i.e., at the time of filing the written statement, and that the employer's written statement did not contain such a request; the application was filed later when the matter was pending for further evidence of the employee. The High Court considered the rival submissions and examined the Supreme Court's decision in Motipur Sugar Factory, which held that where an employer has failed to make an enquiry before dismissing a workman, it is open to him to justify the action before the Tribunal by leading all relevant evidence. The Court found that the Labour Court's rejection was erroneous as the employer's right to lead evidence is not lost merely because the application was filed after the written statement, especially when the matter was still at the stage of the employee's evidence. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Labour Court to permit the employer to lead evidence to prove the charges, subject to the employer paying costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent. The petition was allowed with costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Disciplinary Proceedings - Right to Lead Evidence - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Employer's right to justify dismissal by leading evidence before Tribunal even if no domestic enquiry was held - The Supreme Court in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory held that where no enquiry was conducted, the employer can justify the action before the Tribunal by leading all relevant evidence. The Labour Court's rejection of the application was set aside as the right is not lost merely because the application was filed after the written statement, especially when the matter was still at the stage of employee's evidence. (Paras 7-9) B) Industrial Disputes - Disciplinary Proceedings - Stage of Application - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Application to lead evidence must be filed at the earliest, but delay alone does not disentitle the employer - The respondent's contention that the application should have been filed at the stage of written statement was rejected. The Court held that the Labour Court ought to have allowed the application as the employer's right to prove charges is substantive and the delay was not fatal. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court erred in rejecting the employer's application to lead evidence to prove charges against the employee, filed after the written statement and when the matter was pending for further evidence of the employee.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 07/09/2022 passed by the Labour Court, Amravati, and directed the Labour Court to permit the employer to lead evidence to prove the charges against the employee, subject to the employer paying costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent.
Law Points
- Right of employer to prove charges before Tribunal when no enquiry conducted
- Stage for filing application to lead evidence
- Discretion of Labour Court to permit evidence at later stage
