Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions arising from the same dispute between M/s Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (Management) and Satish Dattatraya Gosavi (Workman). The Workman was dismissed from service on 23.06.1990 after a domestic enquiry found him guilty of assaulting an officer, R.S. Shukre, with an iron rod at his residence, stemming from a workplace dispute. The Workman filed Complaint (ULP) No.71/1990 before the Labour Court under Section 28(1) read with Items 1(a), (b), and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, challenging the dismissal and also sought interim relief under Section 30(2). The Labour Court dismissed the complaint, and the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.11/1992 upheld that decision on 10.08.1994. The Management filed Writ Petition No.2921/1994 challenging the Industrial Court's order, and the Workman filed Writ Petition No.3529/1994 challenging the same order. The High Court noted that the Workman had specifically pleaded in paragraph 3 of his complaint that the Inquiry Officer, C.J. Shukre, was the company's lawyer and related to the officer R.S. Shukre, and thus the enquiry report was vitiated by bias. However, both the Labour Court and the Industrial Court failed to consider this plea and did not follow the due procedure for examining the validity of the domestic enquiry. The High Court found that the courts below had not given the Workman an opportunity to lead evidence on the issue of bias, which was a procedural irregularity. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 10.08.1994 and remanded Complaint (ULP) No.71/1990 to the Second Labour Court at Ahmednagar for fresh adjudication. The Labour Court was directed to decide the complaint afresh after giving both sides an opportunity to lead evidence on the issue of bias and other aspects. The interim relief granted earlier was directed to continue until the Labour Court decided the complaint. Both writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Domestic Enquiry - Bias of Inquiry Officer - Allegation of bias against inquiry officer who is related to the complainant officer must be examined by the Labour Court before accepting the enquiry report - The courts below failed to consider the plea of bias raised by the workman in paragraph 3 of the complaint - Held that the matter must be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity to both sides to lead evidence on the issue of bias (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court failed to follow due procedure in dealing with a complaint challenging a dismissal order based on a domestic enquiry, particularly regarding the allegation of bias of the inquiry officer.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are disposed of. The impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 10.08.1994 is set aside. Complaint (ULP) No.71/1990 is remanded to the Second Labour Court at Ahmednagar for fresh adjudication. The Labour Court shall decide the complaint afresh after giving both sides an opportunity to lead evidence on the issue of bias and other aspects. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue until the Labour Court decides the complaint.
Law Points
- Domestic enquiry
- bias of inquiry officer
- procedural irregularity
- remand
- MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Section 28(1)
- Schedule IV Items 1(a)(b)(f)
- Section 30(2)
