- (1.) THE short controversy raised in the instant writ application, while challenging the legality and validity of the impugned award dated 2nd November, 2012, seeks answer to the question: Whether the Labour Court -I, Jaipur, was justified in declining the opportunity to the petitioner -Management to produce evidence after having declared the inquiry as unfair"? And that too, in the face of an order that accorded such a permission and the matter was posted for production of evidence on behalf of the petitioner -Management?
(2.) BRIEFLY , the indispensable skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are: (a) The Labour Court -I, Jaipur, after having adjudicated upon the enquiry as unfair on 18th May, 2011; posted the matter for further proceedings, affording an opportunity of evidence to be adduced by the petitioner -Management. The opportunity to adduce evidence was resisted by the representative of the respondent -workman, by an application filed on 6th September, 2011, stating that in absence of any written application, such an opportunity could be afforded to the petitioner -Management in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation versus Lakshmidevamma and Anr, 2001 2 LLJ 199. (b) The Labour Court keeping in view the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation , allowing the application of the respondent -workman adjudicated upon the reference in favour of the respondent -workman. The termination of employment of the respondent -workman was held to be illegal and invalid, with a further direction for reinstatement with 20% of back wages with effect from 1st April, 1996 to 1st November, 2012. The respondent -workman was also held entitled for full back wages, along with other admissible allowances, with effect from 2nd November, 2012. However, the opportunity to the petitioner -Management was reserved to proceed with the inquiry afresh. The petitioner -Management aggrieved of the impugned award has instituted the present writ proceedings.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner -Management reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application argued that once the permission to adduce evidence was accorded to the petitioner -Management, the same could not have been withdrawn depriving the petitioner -Management of the opportunity to justify the action. Further, the opportunity to adduce evidence was closed keeping in view the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation . The learned counsel further urged that the law referred to and relied upon was not correctly applied for the powers of the Court/Tribunal are not restricted and the Labour Court ought to have permitted the petitioner -Management to lead evidence including production of the documents at any stage of the proceedings. In order to reinforce his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Divyash Pandit and Management of N.C.C.B.M.: [2005 (105) FLR 1179], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the opinion of the Constitution Bench in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation , held thus: - "9. It is true no doubt that the respondent may not have made any prayer for (sic submitting) additional evidence in its written statement but, as held by this Court in Karnataka S.R.T.C. v. Laxmidevanmma, this did not place a fetter on the powers of the Court/Tribunal to require or permit parties to lead additional evidence including producing of document at any stage of proceedings before they are concluded. Once the Labour Court came to the finding that the enquiry was non est, the facts of the case warranted that the Labour Court should have given one opportunity to the respondent to establish the charges before passing an award in favour of the workman.";