- (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-management challenging the validity and proprietary of the impugned Order dated 16.09.2011 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara in Labour Case No. 15/2008 whereby the domestic inquiry held by the petitioner-management against the respondent-workman was declared unfair. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner-management submitted that on 20.01.2007, the respondent-workman committed the misconduct and thereafter, remained absent from duty. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent-workmen and after holding the domestic inquiry, the services of the respondent-workman were terminated vide Order dated 05.04.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred to he Labour Court, Bhilwara. The statement of claim filed by the respondent-workman shows that he has not challenged the validity of the domestic inquiry. Inspite of the same, the Labour Court vide its' Order dated 16.09.2011 decided the issue of inquiry at the first instance and recorded its' conclusion that the said inquiry was unfair, it is further contended that it is the settled law that the Court is required to adjudicate the dispute as raised by the parties and the Court cannot supplement the pleadings of the parties. Further, the court below failed to appreciate that the services of the respondent-workman were terminated as a consequence of the conclusion of domestic inquiry, whereas, the respondent-workman was afforded full opportunity to participate and he has admitted his fault and misconduct. The court below has decided to declare it unfair only on account of the fact that the signature of the workman may have been obtained under the influence of the management as the workman is a lowest level employee and the said findings were uncalled for.
(2.) Reliance is placed on the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of the Management of Ritz Theatre (Private) Ltd. Delhi v. Its Workmen, 1963 AIR(SC) 295 and the Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe, 1975 AIR(SC) 1900.
(3.) The respondent-workman has filed his reply and raised the preliminary objection. As per the solitary preliminary objection, the order under challenge is an interim order and therefore, the present writ petition against an interim order was not maintainable.;