RUMA PAL AND C.K.THAKKER, JJ. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE appellant before us was an employee of the respondent council. Pursuant to an enquiry held, his services were terminated in 1987. The Labour Court, before which a reference was made challenging the termination, framed four issues for determination on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. These four issues were: 1. Whether the management is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act? 2. Whether the Delhi Administration is not the 'appropriate Government' as alleged in preliminary objection 2? 3. Whether the petitioner is a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act? 4. Whether the domestic enquiry held by the management is improper and invalid and whether the finding is perverse? The Labour Court decided issue 4. According to the award the respondent had given up all other issues. By the award it was found that the enquiry was improperly held and that the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer was perverse. The order of termination was accordingly set aside and the appellant was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages. We may note at this stage that in the concluding portion of the award the Labour Court has noted that 'there was no request till today of the management to lead evidence in support of charges and to prove the same'. The Labour Court, despite holding that the enquiry conducted by the management was non est in the eye of the law', did not also consider the power which it undoubtedly has of allowing the management I to lead additional evidence to establish the charges against the appellant. Be that as it may, immediately after the award was passed an application was made by the respondent for review of the award. In the application the employer stated - -(1) that it had not foregone the other issues, and (2) that an opportunity should be granted to the management to establish its case. The review application was dismissed by the Labour Court rejecting the first submission. However, the Labour Court did not apply its mind to the prayer of the management that it should have been granted an opportunity of leading evidence.
(3.) THE respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the award of the Labour Court. The writ petition was allowed and the award was set aside. The High Court was of the view that the Labour Court should adjudicate all the issues afresh. The matter was accordingly remanded back to the Labour Court for deciding 'all' the issues afresh. This order was passed on December 2, 2002.;