KAUSHIK J GANDHI Vs. SANDESH LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Raval for Mr. Anand for the petitioner and Mr. Kunal Nanavati tor the respondents. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award mads by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Refe -ence No.479 of 1990 (Old No.Ref.LCA No.75/82, Ref.No.318/84 dated 23.7.1992) wherein the Labour Court has rejected the said reference.

(2.) INDUSTRIAL dispute has been referred to for adjudication on 11th January, 1982; the workman filed his statement of claim as referred to in para 2 of the award. According to the statement of claim of the workman at Exh.4, as appearing from the award, the services of the workman were terminated by the Managing Director Shri Chimanbhai Somabhai Patel on 11th June, 1981 and, therefore, he immediately served notice upon the respondent on 12th June, 1981. The respondent gave show cause notice on 12th June, 1981 along with preliminary suspension order which was received by the workman on 16th June, 1981 and, therefore the grievance of the workman was to the effect that first, the respondent terminated his services and then subsequently issued show cause notice and order of suspension. The dispute was raised by the workman under S.2(a) of the I.D. Act against the oral order of termination dated 11th June, 1981. The reply was submitted by the respondent at Exh.8 wherein it was pointed out by the respondent that the petitioner workman was working in Dispatch Department and he committed misconduct on 11th June, 1981 and, therefore, on 12th June, 1981, show cause notice and the suspension order was issued by the respondent, which was received by the petitioner workman and it was replied by the workman on 15th June, 1981. On 12th June, 1981 one letter was written to the petitioner by the respondent. Reply dated 18.6.1981 given by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. Therefore, the respondent decided to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner and, thereafter, departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner remained absent and the petitioner informed the Inquiry Officer that he is not willing to participate in the inquiry and left the place of inquiry. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 30th July, 1981. But on that day, the petitioner failed to remain present and in his absence, the departmental inquiry was conducted. Thereafter, copy of the statement of the witness Shri Dave which was recorded in absence of the petitioner was sent to the petitioner workman for giving an opportunity to take cross -examination of the said witness Shri Dave, as well as to produce any evidence in support of his case. Said letter was received by the potitioner. But on 11th August, 1981, he had not remained present and, therefore, the inquiry officer decided the matter in absence of the petitioner and submitted his findings on 15th September, 1981 and, thereafter, the respondent served show cause notice with findings to the petitioner to which no reply was given by the petitioner and thereafter, the respondent passed the order of dismissal on 6th October, 1981. Therefore, according to the respondent, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the respondents after holding proper and legal departmental inquiry and also after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Before the labour court, it was contended by the petitioner that the departmental authority which was initiated by the respondent against him was not legal and proper and, therefore, the labour court examined the said question and vide Exh.59, the labour court decided that the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner was not legal and valid and it was against the principles of natural justice and an opportunity was given to the employer to prove the misconduct against the workman before the labour court by producing evidence. The workman was examined before the labour court. However, in response to such opportunity given by the labour court to the employer, the employer had not produced any documentary and/or oral evidence to prove such misconduct before the labour court.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Raval appearing for Mr. Anand for the petitioner submits that now, after a period of 20 years, the petitioner has to raise the dispute against the dismissal order dated 6th October, 1981. He further submits that the representative was not properly assisted and advised by the union representative at the relevant point of time, when the reply was submitted by the respondent -employer. Difficulty of the petitioner workman can be understood and appreciated. The harassment can also be appreciated. However, the law on this aspect is very much clear that the labour court cannot go beyond the terms of reference. Admittedly, considering the terms of reference, the workman has raised industrial dispute only against the alleged oral order of termination dated 11th June, 1981 and he was not challenging the written order of dismissal dated 6th October, 1981. These facts emerging from the record are admitted facts. Therefore, once the reference is made against the oral order of termination dated 11th June, 1981, then, naturally the labour court cannot travel beyond the terms of the said reference. Therefore, the labour court had no jurisdiction to decide the legality, validity and propriety of the order of dismissal dated 6th October, 1981. Considering the terms of reference, the labour court is having jurisdiction only to examine the legality, validity and propriety of the oral order of termination dated 11th June, 1981. The labour court, therefore, rejected the reference on such a technical ground.