Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Sandoz Private Limited, challenged the judgment and order dated 11 September 2019 passed by the Industrial Court, Thane in Revision Application (ULP) No. 10/2017. The Industrial Court had set aside the Labour Court's orders dated 3 March 2015 (Part-I) and 27 December 2015 (Part-II), holding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the Respondent-workman was illegal, and remanded the complaint for fresh decision. The Respondent was initially employed by M/s. Ciba CKD Biochem Ltd. and later became the Petitioner's workman after the Petitioner took over the manufacturing plant. The Petitioner initiated a domestic enquiry against the Respondent by issuing a chargesheet dated 21 October 2009 alleging unauthorized absence from 27 September 2009 and 70 days of absence between July 2007 and October 2009. The chargesheet itself fixed the enquiry date as 30 October 2009. The Respondent received the chargesheet but failed to participate in the enquiry. The Petitioner conducted the enquiry ex-parte from 30 October 2009 to 10 February 2010, holding six sittings. Notices for each sitting were sent to the Respondent's address on record, but envelopes were returned with remarks 'left address' or 'refused to accept'. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 25 February 2010 holding the charge proved. The report was sent to the Respondent but returned with remark 'left address not known'. The Labour Court, in Part-I order, upheld the enquiry as fair and proper. In Part-II, it held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and directed reinstatement without back wages. The Industrial Court, in revision, set aside both orders, holding that the Petitioner should have made further efforts to trace the Respondent's address. The High Court found that the Industrial Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence. It held that the Petitioner had provided reasonable opportunity by sending notices to the last known address, and the Respondent's refusal to accept or failure to update his address cannot be held against the employer. The High Court set aside the Industrial Court's order and restored the Labour Court's orders, with a modification that the Respondent is entitled to 25% back wages instead of full back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Domestic Enquiry - Ex-Parte Proceedings - Reasonable Opportunity - The employer must provide reasonable opportunity to the workman to defend himself in a domestic enquiry. Sending notices to the workman's last known address, which are returned with remarks 'left address' or 'refused to accept', constitutes sufficient service. The workman cannot later claim violation of natural justice if he fails to participate despite such service. (Paras 1-11) B) Industrial Law - Revision Application - Scope of Interference - Industrial Court under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) - The Industrial Court, in revision, cannot reappreciate evidence like an appellate court. It can only interfere if the Labour Court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence. Setting aside a well-reasoned Labour Court order on the ground that the employer should have made further efforts to trace the workman is beyond the revisional jurisdiction. (Paras 12-14) C) Industrial Law - Enquiry Officer's Report - Validity - The Enquiry Officer's report, based on evidence of the employer's witnesses and the workman's absence, is valid. The workman's failure to participate despite notice does not render the enquiry illegal. The Labour Court correctly upheld the enquiry as fair and proper. (Paras 8-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the Labour Court's orders and holding the domestic enquiry illegal, despite the workman having refused to accept notices and failed to participate in the enquiry.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the Industrial Court's order dated 11 September 2019, and restored the Labour Court's orders dated 3 March 2015 and 27 December 2015 with a modification that the Respondent is entitled to 25% back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement.
Law Points
- Industrial Dispute
- Domestic Enquiry
- Ex-Parte Proceedings
- Reasonable Opportunity
- Natural Justice
- Service of Notice
- Refusal to Accept
- Left Address
