COOPER ENGINEERING LIMITED versus SHRI P. P. MUNDHE

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 20-08-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.. / 
• 
A 
COOPER ENGINEERING LIMITED 
v. 
SHRI P. P. MUNDHE 
Au11ust 20, 1975 
361 
(A. ALAGJRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.j 
B 
Industrial Dispute-Domestic enquiry-Violative of principles of 
natural 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
justice-If labour court should give opportunity to adduce evidence afresfz-
Faifure to do so--1.f vitiates the award . 
On the question, whether when a domestic inquiry held by an employer was 
found by the labour court as violative of the principles of natural justice there 
was any duty cast upon that court to give an opportunity to the employer to 
adduce eviderice afresh before it and whether failure to do so would vitiate its 
riv.-ard, 
HELO : When a case of d!.smissal or discharge of an employee is referred 
for industrial adjudication the labour court should first decide as a preliminary 
i~!'.Ue ·whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. 
\Vhen there was no domestic enquiry or defective enqui.ry is admitted by the 
en1ployer. there will be no difficulty. 
But when the n1atter is in controversy 
between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that 
decision being rironounced it w~ll be for the management to decide whether it 
\\ill adduce any evidence before the labour court. If it chooses not to adduce 
any eYidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the 
i<>Sue. 
There will be no justi.fication for any party to stall the final adjudication 
of the dispute by the labour court by questioning it'i decision with regard to the 
p;eliminary issue when the matter~ if worthy, can be agitated even after the· 
final award. It will be legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at 
th;-;; stage. 
[368C.E] 
"tVorknzen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Limited v. 
Motipur 
Sugar 
Factory [1962] 3 S.C.R. 588; Management· of Northern Railway Coaperative 
Society Ltd. v. 1ndustrial Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur and Anr. [1967] 2 S.C.R. 
-l.76; Ma11agen1ent ·of Ritz Theat,re (P) Ltd. 
v. 
l!s workmen [1963] 3 S.C.R. 
461/469·470; State Bank of India v. R. K. loin & Ors. [1972] 1 S.C.R. 755/766, 
777; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludlz 
Bud/I Singh (1972] 
3 S.C.R. 
29 /54-56 and Work1nen of Messrs Ffrestone Tyre & Rubber Co1npany of India 
(P) Ltd. v. Management & Others, (1973] 3 S.C.R. 587/606-607, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 1969. 
Appeal by special leave from the award dated the 31st March, 1969· 
of ·the Labour Court, Kolhapur, Maharashtra in Reference (IDA) No. 
5 of !968. 
B. Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant. 
R. K. Gari?, S. C. A11arwal and V. J. Francis, for the re5pOi1dent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GOSWAMI, J. 
The important question which has been pinpointed 
in this appeal by special leave is whether when a domestic inquiry held' 
by an employer is found by the labour court as violative of the principles 
of natural justice there is any duty cast upon that court to give an oppor-
tunity to the employer to adduce evidence. afresh before it and whether 
failure to do so would vitiate its award . 
.I
\
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 
In the present case the workman concerned was charged under the 
A 
standing orders of the company for soliciting or collecting from the 
employees contributions for some purpose (allegedly purchase of micro-
phone and loud-speaker arrangements) within the factory 
premises. 
The workman denied the charge of soliciting or collecting contribution 
within the factory premises (for purchase of microphone and loud-
speaker) but added that "for this purpose I collect the said contribution 
outside the gate of the Company and this being so, such erroneous infor-
B 
mation supplied to you by son1eone should not be considered accept-
able". 
After holding the domestic inquiry in which some witnesses were 
examined by the employer. and cross-examined by the workman and 
questioning the workman at the outset as well as at the end of the in-
quiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a very brief report to the Works 
C 
Manager (hereinafter the Manager) holding that the charges were esta-
blished. 
He did not give any detailed reasons for preferring the evi-
dence of the six witnesses examined on behalf of the employer in the 
inquiry to the version of the workman. 
The Manager after perusal of 
the report of the Enquiry Officer passed the order of dismissal without 
adverting to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.