Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an employee of Jalgaon Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, was suspended on 17.8.2006 and served with a charge sheet on 17.11.2006. After a domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 28.6.2007, and the Bank terminated his services on 13.9.2007. The employee filed Complaint (ULP) No.43 of 2007 before the Labour Court challenging his termination. The Labour Court, by Part I judgment dated 23.11.2012, concluded that the enquiry was vitiated for non-compliance of principles of natural justice and the findings were perverse as there was no evidence to support the charges. The Bank filed Revision (ULP) No.12 of 2013 before the Industrial Court, which allowed the revision by judgment dated 4.3.2015, quashing the Labour Court's Part I judgment and holding that the enquiry was fair and findings not perverse. The employee challenged this before the High Court. The High Court found that the Industrial Court had not considered the evidence on record and had merely observed that the employee participated in the enquiry, which was insufficient to conclude fairness. The High Court set aside the Industrial Court's judgment and restored the Labour Court's Part I judgment, directing the Labour Court to proceed with the complaint on merits.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Domestic Enquiry - Principles of Natural Justice - Labour Court's Preliminary Findings - The Labour Court, in Part I judgment, held that the domestic enquiry was vitiated for non-compliance of principles of natural justice and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse as there was no evidence to conclude guilt. The Industrial Court, in revision, set aside this judgment without considering the evidence on record, merely relying on the fact that the employee participated in the enquiry. Held that the Industrial Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by not examining the evidence to determine perversity or violation of natural justice (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court, in revisional jurisdiction, could set aside the Labour Court's Part I judgment holding the domestic enquiry as vitiated for non-compliance of principles of natural justice and findings as perverse, without considering the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Industrial Court's judgment dated 4.3.2015, and restored the Labour Court's Part I judgment dated 23.11.2012. The Labour Court was directed to proceed with the complaint on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Domestic enquiry
- principles of natural justice
- perverse findings
- revisional jurisdiction
- Industrial Court's scope of review
- Labour Court's preliminary findings
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (04) 14
Writ Petition No. 6479 of 2015
Shri Barde Parag Vijay for Petitioner, Shri Dixit V.J. Sr. Advocate i/b Shri Nagargoje Ankush N. for Respondents
Jalgaon Janata Sahakari Bank Limited and another
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the Industrial Court's order in revision which set aside the Labour Court's Part I judgment holding the domestic enquiry as vitiated.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Industrial Court's judgment dated 4.3.2015 and restoration of the Labour Court's Part I judgment dated 23.11.2012.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court allowed the revision filed by the Bank and set aside the Labour Court's preliminary findings that the enquiry was vitiated and findings perverse.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court Part I judgment dated 23.11.2012 held enquiry vitiated and findings perverse; Industrial Court by judgment dated 4.3.2015 set aside the Labour Court's judgment and held enquiry fair.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court, in revisional jurisdiction, could set aside the Labour Court's Part I judgment without considering the evidence on record?
Whether the Industrial Court's conclusion that the enquiry was fair and findings not perverse is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Industrial Court did not consider the evidence and merely observed that the employee participated in the enquiry, which is insufficient to conclude fairness.
Respondent Bank argued that the Industrial Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction and the Labour Court's findings were erroneous.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, must consider the evidence on record to determine whether the Labour Court's findings on perversity or violation of natural justice are sustainable. Mere participation in the enquiry does not cure the violation of principles of natural justice or perverse findings.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court has not considered the evidence on record and has merely observed that the petitioner participated in the enquiry.
The Industrial Court has exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by not examining the evidence to determine perversity or violation of natural justice.
Procedural History
Petitioner suspended on 17.8.2006; charge sheet dated 31.10.2006 served on 17.11.2006; enquiry report submitted on 28.6.2007; termination on 13.9.2007; complaint filed before Labour Court; Labour Court Part I judgment on 23.11.2012; revision filed by Bank; Industrial Court judgment on 4.3.2015; writ petition filed in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act):
