P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, TAPEN SEN,J. - (1.) CWJC 3359 of 1992(R) was filed by the management challenging the award of the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 9 of 1985. By that award, the Labour Court set aside the punishment of dismissal awarded to two workmen, K.K.Yadav and R.P. Singh and directed their reinstatement with full back wages from the date of their dismissal to the date of their reinstatement. According to the management, the Labour Court had acted without jurisdiction in passing such an award since by an order dated August 16, 1990, it was found that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management against the workmen was valid and proper and what remained to be decided in terms of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act was the question whether the punishment was disproportionate to the charges proved. But, what the Labour Court did was to reconsider the evidence taken at the domestic enquiry and to record a finding that the charges against the workmen were not proved by the management, in disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as if it were sitting in appeal over the decision of the Enquiry Officer. According to the management, the Labour Court had only jurisdiction to consider whether the punishment awarded was proper, once it had found that the domestic enquiry was valid and proper. The learned single Judge held that there was no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, but he felt that the conduct of the workmen was such that they did not deserve the back wages as ordered by the Labour Court. The learned single Judge, while upholding the directions for reinstatement, held that the workmen are entitled only to 50% of the back wages and not to the whole as held by the Labour Court. Feeling aggrieved by its substantial failure in, its writ petition, the management has filed LPA No. 348 of 2000 and feeling aggrieved by the interference with the back wages, the Union has filed LPA No. 9 of 2000.
(2.) The learned counsel for the management has submitted that the Labour Court having held on August 16, 1990, that the domestic enquiry was valid and proper, had acted beyond its jurisdiction in posing point No. 1 in the award for decision and purporting to enter a finding that the management had not proved the charges against the workmen. The counsel submitted that once the validity of the domestic enquiry was upheld, the Labour Court was concerned only with the quantum of, punishment awarded in the light of what has been found at the Enquiry. That part of the award in which the Labour Court purported to disagree with the Enquiry Officer and to record a finding that the charge has not been found to be proved was one without jurisdiction. The finding that the punishment was disproportionate was based on the finding that the charges were not proved and this was also illegal. Thus, it was submitted that the award should have been struck down and the learned single Judge was not justified in upholding the award. The learned counsel for the Union on the other hand submitted that under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, there was ample jurisdiction in the Labour Court to consider the question of the propriety of the punishment awarded and in that process to come to a conclusion of its own regarding the charge. The counsel did not dispute that on August 16, 1990 there was a finding that the domestic enquiry was valid and proper. But, he submitted that the Labour Court could not be said to have travelled beyond its power under Section 11-A of the Act since it had the jurisdiction to reconsider the matter as far as punishment was concerned.
(3.) We find that in its order dated August 16, 1990, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry had been conducted by the management in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the findings of the Enquiry Officer was on the basis of the evidence taken during the domestic enquiry. It was thus, that the domestic enquiry was found to be legal and valid. Once the domestic enquiry was so found to be legal and valid, it appears to us that it was not open to the Labour Court to canvass the question whether the findings at the domestic enquiry were correct or sustainable or not. In fact, the first question posed by the Labour Court to itself, in our view, is based on misconception of its jurisdiction in the context of its finding dated August 16, 1990. The question posed is "Whether the management had been able to prove the charges levelled against the workmen on the basis of the evidence available on record?" The Labour Court did not take any evidence or did not direct the management to adduce evidence before it, to sustain the charges framed against the workmen. Obviously, it was because of its own conclusion that the domestic enquiry was valid and proper. So, no occasion arose for the Labour Court to ask itself the question whether on the evidence, the charges have been proved. In fact, as we have earlier noted, the very folding on August 16, 1990 was to the effect that the findings of the domestic enquiry was supported by the evidence taken at that Enquiry. Thus, in our view, the Labour Court had asked itself a wrong question when it posed the first question for decision. Thereafter, it has proceeded to record a finding that the management has not proved the charges levelled against the workmen. When a Tribunal has asked itself a wrong question and even if it has answered that question correctly, it acts outside its jurisdiction attracting the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court. Here, the Labour Court has committed such an error of jurisdiction.;