LexNEETA KAPLISH versus PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. NEETA KAPLISH A v. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT AND ANR. DECEMBER 4, 1998 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] B Labour Law: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sec. I I-A-Dismissal-Domestic enquiry-Labour Court holding the enquiry not fair and proper-Direction C to management to lead fresh evidence-Management without leading fresh evidence, relying on "evidence on record"-Emp/oyee also not leading any evidence-Labour Court dismissing employee's claim-Validity of-Held, domestic enquiry declared by Labour Court to be defective would neither constitute "fresh evidence" nor "material on record"-Labour Court justified D in calling upon the management to lead fresh evidence-Since management did not lead any evidence, employee has right to lead no evidence-Claim of employee wrongly rejected-However, on facts matter remanded to Labour Court to decide the case afresh after leading evidence . Appellant was dismissed from service after domestic enquiry. Shi: E raised a dispute in the Labour Court that the enquiry was conducted in a biased manner without giving proper opportunity to her. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry was not fair and proper and directed the management to lead fresh evidence. The management instead of leading any evidence, relied upon the evidence already on record. Consequently, appellant-employee also did not lead any evidence. The Labour Court dismissed F the claim of appellant holding that there was no evidence on her behalf. Writ petition before the High Court was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. The contention of the appellant-employee was that once it was held by the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry, conducted by the management was not fair and not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and G it called upon the management to lead evidence on merits, the evidence already recorded during domestic enquiry could not have been legally relied upon and it ought to have been held by the Labour Court that since the management had not led any evidence on merits, the claim of the appellant was liable to be allowed. 379 H 380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A The contention of the respondent-management was that in view of the B proviso to Sec. 11-A of the Act, the Labour Court had to decide the case on the basis of "the materials on record" and the evidence already recorded during domestic enquiry would constitute "material on record" which could not be ignored. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of High Court, this Court HELD : I.I. The record pertaining to the domestic enquiry would not constitute "fresh evidence" as those proceedings have already been found by C the Labour Court to be defective. Such record would also not constitute "material on record", within the meaning of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947as the enquiry proceedings, on being found to be bad, have to be ignored altogether. (392-F-G) 1.2. In all cases where enquiry has not been held or the enquiry has D been found to be defective, the Tribunal can call upon the management or the employer to justify the action taken against the workman and to show by fresh evidence, that the termination or dismissal order was proper. If the management does not lead any evidence by availing of this opportunity, it cannot raise any ground at any subsequent stage that it should have been E given that opportunity, as the Tribunal, in those circumstances, would be justified in passing an award in favour of the workman. If, however, the opportunity is availed of and the evidence is adduced by the management, the validity of the action taken by it has to be scrutinised and adjudicated upon on the basis of such fresh evidence. [391-F-G-H; 392-A) F Ritz Theatre (Pvt.) Ltd. Delhi v. Its Workmen, (1962) 2 LLJ 498 =AIR (1963) SC 295 = [19631 3 SCR 461; State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain and Ors., (1971) 2 LLJ 599 =AIR (1972) SC 136 = (197211 SCR 755 =(19721 4 SCC 304; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) I LLJ 180 =AIR (1972) SC 1631 = [197213 SCR 29 = [197211 sec G 595; The Workmen of Mis. firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Management and Ors., (1973) I LLJ 278 =AIR (1973) SC 1227 = [1973) 3 SCR 587 = (19731 I SCC 813; The East India Hotels v. Their Workmen and Ors., AIR (1974) SC 696 = [19741 3 SCC 712; Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, AIR (1975) S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.