LexBABULAL NAGAR AND ORS. versus SHREE SYNTHETICS LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c E F 772 • BABULAL NAGAR AND ORS. v. SHREE SYNTHETICS LTD. & ORS. May, 4, 1984 [D. A. DEsAi, o. CaINNAPPA REDDY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.J Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act 1960-S~ctions 61 and. 66-:- 0rder of dismissal or remo'la! front service made agalnst an employee- Jurl&- dicri~n af Lfib~u.' Court ro t'nterfere in an app/~catlon under sect/On 6/.-Lahour Court e1;titled to. exa·nine thf! proprlety .or irnproprlety of the order-Jurisdiction ·of Industrial Court to ·interfere with the .order of Labour Court-lnduStriaI c~Urt can co·ne to a different co.1clusio.1 ori same set ;I facts. Words and Phrases-r~As.it t~zifiks fit"-Legalltj and propr/ety"-Meaniq of-Madhya Prade,h Industrial Relations Act, 1960. ,;c:ion 66 (J). The D.ppellants were workmen emplo)'ee5 of the first· respondent com .. pany. It·wa~ alleg~d that .they assault_ed a11otber workmari as a result of which he sustaineJ bleeding.lnjuries.oa his h~ad. A ch1rg~sb~'!t WJS draWQ• up _by the m1nagemen!, was served on the· appellants,. ~hich .. was followed by a comi)osit' domestic enquiry at the end :of which all of them were dismissed ~rom service •. ·The appellants moved five different applications before the Labour CoUrt _questioning the validity of the don1cstic enquiry as also the legality and propriety of the oiders te_rmioating their services; The Labour Court -'findirig that the domestic_ enquiry was held according to the relevant rules, and that there W:is evidence in S\JPP.ort of the alleged misconduct, held that the managemant fYas justified . in. imposing_ the Penalty of dismissal from' service. G The appellants flied five separate revision petitions befOre the Industrial Court- under sections 66 aad 67 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, t 960. The President of the lnciustcial Court, findillg that the entire · approach of-tho Inquiry Officer.-Man'lger in -arriving at the fia lings_ of' mis .. collduct in the domestic· enquiry ~ppoaied to be biase(I and qnfair,_ and that the Conclusions neither fair nor reasonable, held that the dismissal could not H bo sustained. All the revision petitions were therefore .allowed, and the orders of. the Labour Court dismi~sing the applications were set aside, and • , ' ).. i }. ) . ·' llABULAL v. SHREB SYNTHBTics '173. the matters ·were remanded for a fresh decision after giving the pirties due A opr)ortunity to adduce' evidence ia respect of the alleg'ed mis..::onduct. The respondent-company filed Writ pe_titions before the High Court questioning tile correcJness of the-order of _the Industrial Court and a Divi- . sioo Bench held that the Industrial Court e:x;ceeded 'its jurisdfction by inter· fering with the findings of 0 facts, and' as this was an erro~_apparent on the face of the award, quashed the decision of the Industrial Gourt. AlloWing the appeals to t'his Court; HELD : I': (i) Times without numb", it h1s been po!nted out . that Art. 226 is a· device t~ secur~ and advance juslice and. not otherwis.,;. [7 d7E] Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Tra,sport Corporaiion, [ 1983] 4 SCC 156, referred to. • (ij) Ordinarily, th~ Courts exercisi11g cxtraordia1ry · jurisdL:tion is loathe to interfere With an order remandicig the m1tter io the a~thority. · directed to iovCstigate facts. [787F] · · .D. P. Maheshwarl v. Delhi Administratio1 and Ors., [1983] 4 SCC 293; ref1.rr.ed tp.· In the instant case, the Indu~trial. Court had made an Order of rem1nd. The High Court was not justified in interfering with the Same .. By tllis uncalle~ for iiJtcrference, it has merely .Prolonged the agony· of the unem-. · ptOyed workmen and permitted the jurisdiction of the Higll Court urider Art. 226 'to be explojted by thOse who can well afford to· Wait to t'he detriment Or those wlio can· illaff"rd to wait by drJggiag the 1.ltter from cou.rt to court for.adjudication of peripheral is_~ues more vital to th~m. [787F-GJ . . .. ' 2. (i) DisrnisSal frolil service is an order made under th6 relevant · st~nding orders. A relief agaiQst sU.ch an order can be obtained by making all application under section 6 l to the Labour Court. Agaibst the order mad~ by the ~1hour Court un.der se'ction 0 l, a reviSion would lie ·Under section 66 to the Industrial Court. [779H; 780C] (ii) If and when ·an application under ~ection 61 is made the ·Labour B c D E F Court will have jurisdiction to decide the legality and propriety of the order G or'dis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.