PUNJAB TRACTORS LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANR.
LAWS(P&H)-2007-10-113
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on October 31,2007

PUNJAB TRACTORS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Labour Court dated 22.9.2003 whereby while treating an issue regarding fairness of domestic enquiry as preliminary, issue, the onus to prove the said issue was placed on the Management.
(2.) THE respondent No. 2 was charge -sheeted on 9.8.1993 for his alleged misconduct by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was found guilty vide report dated 23.2.1995 on conclusion of the enquiry conducted by an Enquiry Officer. After giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 2, an order of dismissal of his services was passed on 10.4.1995 by the Management. An industrial dispute was pending before the learned Industrial Tribunal, Punjab in respect of the petitioner establishment, therefore, the petitioner sought approval of its action of dismissing respondent No. 2 from service. The learned Industrial Tribunal vide order dated 11.11.1997 accorded approval of dismissal of services of respondent. After the dismissal order came into effect, respondent No. 2 served a demand notice dated 29.12.1997. upon the appropriate Government seeking reference to the Labour Court for the determination of dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and demanding reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. On the reference being made to the Labour Court, Respondent No. 2 alleged in his claim statement that the enquiry held by the Management was not fair and proper and was against the principles of material justice. The Management denied the assertion of respondent No. 2.
(3.) THE learned Labour Court framed the following four issues: 1. Whether the services of the workman have been terminated after holding a fair and proper enquiry? OPM 2. If the Issue No. 1 is not proved, then whether the workman is guilty of major acts of misconduct? OPM 3. Whether the termination of the services of the workman is justified and in order? OPM 4. Relief. The onus to prove all the Issues was put on the Management.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.