Indraprastha Power Generation Co Ltd v. Someer Chaterjee

1. The present petitions have been filed impugning and seeking to set aside the Order dated 23rd December, 2019, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, New Delhi, vide which, the learned Labour Court, while deciding on the preliminary issue of legality and validity of the domestic inquiry conducted with respect to the workmen herein, held the same to be in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same.

2. Briefly stated the facts as alleged in the petition are that the respondent workmen herein participated in a dharna organized by their trade union. As a result, management issued a show cause notice to the workmen, including the respondents herein, who participated in the dharna. Domestic inquiry was conducted, whereby the penalty of dismissal from services, was imposed on the workmen. Respondent workmen challenged the said domestic inquiry and the consequent dismissal order by filing proceedings under section 10 (4), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the learned Labour Court, and the following reference was framed to be adjudicated and determined: "Whether there was a fair and proper enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the service rules governing the workman ? OPW".

3. The legality and validity of the aforementioned domestic inquiry was treated as a preliminary issue and both the parties led their evidence on the issue of inquiry first. Learned Labour court upon appreciating evidence and materials on record returned a categorical finding that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management against the workmen were not as per principles of natural justice and set aside the same. Aggrieved thus, the petitioner management has preferred the present petitions assailing the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Labour Court has fallen into grave error. The impugned order suffers from legal infirmity. It has been submitted that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts contained in the order/judgment delivered in “Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. Shri P.P. Mundhe” (1975) 2 SCC 661 and “D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration” (1983) 4 SCC 293 by the Supreme Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue in the present case regarding the validity of the inquiry conducted against the respondent-workman is in fact final in nature. It has been stated to be preliminary but the Labour Court has given its final verdict as to the validity of the inquiry.

6. Learned counsel submits that therefore the finality of this order is to be determined by the superior courts i.e. High Courts and the Supreme Court before proceeding further.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that consequent to setting aside the domestic enquiry, learned Labour Court had granted the management as per their request, an opportunity to lead evidence in support of its allegations against the respondent workmen. However, despite being granted a second chance to prove its case, petitioner management has parallelly challenged the decision on the preliminary issue by way of the present petitions. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the present petitions against the decision of the Learned Labour Court on the preliminary issue of validity and legality of domestic enquiry is not maintainable for the following reasons: i. It is barred by the dicta of the Supreme Court. Reliance is placed on “Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. Shri P.P. Mundhe” (1975) 2 SCC 661; “D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration” (1983) 4 SCC 293 and National Council for cement & Building Materials v. State of Haryana (1996) 3 SCC 206; ii. It is barred by estoppel premised on the doctrine of election. Reliance is placed on “National Highways Authority of India v. Panipat Jalandhar NH-1 Tollways Pvt. Ltd.” FAO (OS) (COMM) 55/2021;and iii. It is barred by delay and laches as the present petition has been filed in January, 2021 assailing the order dated 23rd December, 2019. Thus delay of more than a year cannot be countenanced on account of the pandemic as the lock down only started in March, 2020. Therefore, the petitioner had three months time to file the present case, which is sufficient.

8. Ld. Counsel for the respondent thus submits that the impugned order does not warrant interference of this Court under its writ jurisdiction.

9. I have considered the submissions. This Court in the case of “Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jai Narain Bansal & others” (37(1989) DLT 183), while relying on “Cooper Engineering Ltd.’s” case (supra), has inter alia held as under: “5. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a Judgment reported as The Cooper Engineering Ltd. V. P.P.Mundhe, AIR 1975 SC 1900. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court on this aspect are reproduced below: " We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer there will be no difficulty. But when matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court, it will not thereafter be permissible in any proceedings, to raise the issue. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication.

6. The observations of the Supreme Court fairly and squarely apply to the facts and the findings of the present case. Even though the enquiry proceedings have been set aside being not in conformity with the principles of natural justice, but the petitioner/management has been given another opportunity to prove the alleged misconduct by leading evidence before the Labour Court. The impugned order, thus, is an interlocutory order against which writ is not maintainable. After the parties are allowed to lead evidence, the final order will be passed by the Labour Court.”

10. In the case of “M/S Ryan International School v. Shri Pan Singh,” W.P. (C) 14365/2021 decided on 15.12.2021, this court while dealing with a challenge to the order passed by the learned Labour court in which the enquiry report of the petitioner/school against the respondent/workman was held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice, inter alia held as under:

11. In Vyasya Bank Ltd. vs. M.Namadeva Pai and Anr., 1994 – I L.L.N.417, the High Court of Karnataka has followed the ratio of Cooper Engineering’s case (supra) and inter alia held as under:

12. The High Court of Rajasthan in Manager, Poddar Spinning Mills vs. The learned Labour Court of Rajasthan and Ors. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.18 of 1978 decided on 25.01.1980 has inter alia held as under: