Case Note & Summary
This writ petition arises from an industrial dispute where the petitioner-employee, a sweeper with the Nanded-Waghala City Municipal Corporation, challenged his dismissal for alleged unauthorized absence of six months. After a domestic enquiry, the corporation dismissed him on 22.2.2013. The employee filed Complaint (ULP) No.27/2013 before the Labour Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging unfair labour practice and questioning the fairness of the enquiry. The Labour Court, by part-I order dated 30.10.2015, held the enquiry vitiated for unfairness and perverse findings. Despite the corporation not reserving any right in its written statement to conduct a de novo enquiry, the Labour Court permitted the management to examine one witness. After considering the evidence, the Labour Court, on 20.6.2016, found the charges not proved, allowed the complaint, set aside the dismissal, and granted reinstatement with continuity of service but imposed a penalty of permanent stoppage of three increments, denying back wages. The corporation challenged this order by filing Revision (ULP) No.31/2016 under Section 44 of the Act before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, in its judgment dated 21.7.2018, re-appreciated the entire evidence, concluded the charges were proved, set aside the Labour Court's order, and dismissed the complaint entirely. Aggrieved, the employee filed Writ Petition No.563 of 2019. The core legal issue was whether an employer must reserve its right to lead evidence or conduct a de novo enquiry in the written statement itself when the domestic enquiry is challenged, and whether the Labour Court can permit such evidence suo motu without such reservation. The petitioner relied heavily on the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Lakshmidevamma, (2001) 5 SCC 433, which held that the right must be reserved in the written statement. The respondent corporation cited Divyash Pandit v. Management NCCBM, AIR 2006 SC 92, arguing that the Labour Court has inherent powers to permit de novo enquiry in the interest of justice. The High Court, after hearing both sides, analyzed the precedents, including Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., (1979) 3 SCC 371, and M.L. Singla v. Punjab National Bank, 2018 AIR SC 4668, which clarified that there is no duty on the court to suo motu offer such an opportunity; the employer must ask for it in pleadings, orally, or by application. The decision in Lakshmidevamma conclusively settled that the right must be reserved in the written statement. Since the corporation had failed to do so, the Labour Court could not have permitted the de novo enquiry. The Industrial Court further erred by ignoring this procedural flaw and re-evaluating evidence, thereby exceeding its revisional jurisdiction under Section 44. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's judgment dated 21.7.2018, and restored the Labour Court's judgment dated 20.6.2016, which had granted reinstatement with continuity and penalty of permanent stoppage of three increments.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - De Novo Enquiry - Reservation of Right in Written Statement - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Sections not specified, read with principles from Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The employer dismissed the workman after a domestic enquiry which the Labour Court found vitiated, but the employer had not reserved a right to lead fresh evidence in its written statement. The High Court, relying on Karnataka SRTC v. Lakshmidevamma (2001) 5 SCC 433, held that unless such a right is expressly reserved in the pleadings, the Labour Court cannot permit a de novo enquiry. Held that the Industrial Court erred in permitting evidence and setting aside the Labour Court's order; writ petition allowed and Labour Court's judgment restored (Paras 4-11). B) Labour Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope under Section 44, MRTU and PULP Act - The Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and finding the charges proved, ignoring the fundamental procedural flaw that no right to lead evidence was reserved by the employer. Held that the Industrial Court's order was unsustainable (Paras 5(k), 5(l)).
Issue of Consideration
Whether it is necessary for an employer to reserve its right to conduct a de novo enquiry in the written statement itself, and whether the Labour Court can permit a de novo enquiry without such reservation.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's judgment dated 21.7.2018, and restored the Labour Court's judgment dated 20.6.2016, thereby granting reinstatement with continuity and penalty of permanent stoppage of three increments, holding that the employer must reserve the right to lead evidence in the written statement.
Law Points
- Employer must reserve right to lead evidence in written statement when domestic enquiry is challenged
- Labour Court has no suo motu duty to offer opportunity for de novo enquiry
- De novo enquiry cannot be permitted without employer's request in pleadings
- Principle from Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda applied in MRTU and PULP Act context
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 does not permit reappreciation of evidence contrary to settled procedural law
