- (1.) THE petitioner is the Management of Christian Mission Hospital run by the Diocese of Madurai-Ramnad. THE 2nd respondent was working as a Medical Store Incharge in the said hospital with a salary of Rs.778.50 and he had put in 25 years of service. He was dismissed from service after conducting an enquiry. THE entire dismissal was based upon a report of the internal audit by one Suri & Co. THE 2nd respondent raised an Industrial Dispute and the same was taken on file before the 1st respondent Labour Court as I.D.No.470 of 1991. Before the Labour Court, the validity of the enquiry was attacked by the parties and the Labour Court gave a preliminary order on 11.02.1994 by holding that the enquiry conducted against the 2nd respondent was not fair and proper. After taking advantage of the opportunity furnished by the Labour Court, fresh evidence was let in. While the 2nd respondent was examined as W.W.1 on the said of the Management, 3 witnesses were examined as M.Ws.1 to 3. While no document was filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner/ Management filed 56 documents. THEy were marked as Exs.M.1 to M.56. THE Labour Court, on an analysis of the evidence (both oral and documentary), came to the conclusion that the best evidence was not produced before the Labour Court and mere reliance upon the audit report cannot have any relevance. THE Labour Court also held that there were discrepancies in the audit report with reference to the indents for certain medicines and Dr.Rajkumar, who was examined in the domestic enquiry, was not examined before the Labour Court. THE Labour Court also observed that either the Auditor or one of the Clerks of the Auditor's company should have been examined to the satisfaction of the Court. THErefore, the Labour Court, in paragraph No.14 of the Award, came to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with the evidence produced and in that view of the matter, held that the non employment of the 2nd respondent was not justified. However, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that since there has been bitter relationship between the Management and the 2nd respondent, it is not a fit case to order reinstatement and also by the exercise of power under Section 11 A of the I.D.Act computed Rs.50,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. THE Labour Court also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Bharat Frits Werner (P) Ltd -vs- Bharat Frits Werner (P) Ltd. and another reported in 1990(60) F.L.R. Page 482. It is against this Award, the present writ petition has been filed by the Management and an order of interim stay was granted on 15.09.1998. Subsequently, the stay was also made absolute on 26.12.2002.
(2.) MR.S.Jayaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the Management had not questioned the preliminary order, the Management had tried its best to place all the relevant materials before the Labour Court for coming at a proper conclusion. The Labour Court cannot seek that a particular witness to be examined and the examination of the Auditor is not imperative in pointing out the discrepancies found in the Auditor's report. The doctor was also not available and hence, he was not examined. But in any event, there was satisfactory evidence available before the Labour Court to hold the petitioner guilty. This Court is unable to agree with the said submission. Once there was a preliminary issue held against the Management that any materials produced before the Labour Court should be to the satisfaction of the Labour Court, in the present case, the lacunae pointed out by the Labour Court cannot be brushed aside lightly. The Labour Court also took note of the fact, the stained relationship between the Management and the 2nd respondent and considering the fact that the 2nd respondent, who was working for over 25 years, only ordered compensation of Rs.50,000/- It is not a fit case where this Court should interfere with the relief portion of the Award while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition stands dismissed. The Management is directed to comply with the Award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.470 of 1998 dated 03.09.1997 within a period of eight weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However there will be no order as to costs.;