THE GENERAL MANAGER, PANIPAT WOOLLEN MILLS, KHARAR Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, PATIALA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main controversy in this writ petition preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is, "whether the Labour Court was bound to afford an opportunity to the Management for leading evidence in order to prove the charges against the workman after it has found the domestic enquiry to be defective for non -compliance with the rules of natural justice."

(2.) THE second charge was found to have not been proved by the Enquiry Officer, Aggrieved against the said order, the workman successfully sought reference to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Patiala, vide its order dated 24th July, 1985 ordered the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and full back wages on the ground that the principles of natural justice were not followed while conducting the domestic enquiry inasmuch as the workman was not supplied with a copy of confessional statement made by Ishar Singh Gate Clerk during the enquiry proceedings and that not to speak of producing Ishar Singh as a witness against him he was not allowed to cross -examine any witness.

(3.) IT appears that the Management did not press the application dated 26/27th March, 1984 moved earlier to lead evidence on the merits of the case, if it was found that the enquiry was defective. That is why the Presiding Officer Labour Court had passed the above referred order without referring to this application.