Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Siddheshwar Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., filed two writ petitions challenging the Part I orders of the Labour Court at Aurangabad. The respondents, employees Ganesh Tejrao Bangale and Prakash Charandas Arake, had filed complaints under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). The Labour Court framed two issues: (A) whether the enquiry was fair and proper, and (B) whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. The first issue was not contested and answered in the negative. On the second issue, the Labour Court concluded that the findings were perverse because the management witness's testimony before the Enquiry Officer was in written form and not sworn on oath before a Notary or competent authority. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court erred, but the High Court found no merit. The High Court held that for evidence to be considered in a domestic enquiry, it must be sworn on oath before a person authorized to administer oaths. Since the written statement was not so sworn, the Labour Court correctly held the findings perverse. Both writ petitions were dismissed, and rule discharged.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Domestic Enquiry - Evidence on Oath - Written Statement Not Sworn - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 28 - The issue was whether a written statement of a management witness before an Enquiry Officer, not sworn on oath before a Notary or competent authority, renders the enquiry findings perverse. The Labour Court held that such unsworn testimony cannot be considered as valid evidence, making the findings perverse. The High Court upheld this view, dismissing the writ petitions. (Paras 3-8) B) Industrial Law - Labour Court - Part I Order - Perverse Findings - MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, Section 28 - The Labour Court, in a Part I order, concluded that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse because the management witness's testimony was in written form and not sworn on oath. The High Court affirmed that the Labour Court's conclusion was correct and that the writ petitions lacked merit. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the evidence statement of a witness in written form before the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry should necessarily be sworn on oath before a Notary or a competent authority which has the power to administer an oath.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Domestic enquiry
- Evidence on oath
- Perverse findings
- MRTU and PULP Act
- Section 28
- Written statement not sworn
- Natural justice
