SECURITRANS INDIA (P) LTD. v. SHRI MANOJ PRASAD

22 WITH + W.P.(C) 14901/2021 & CM APPLs. 47079-80/2021 Through: Mr. Arun Mehta, Advocate versus SHRI SHIV BHAGWAN SINGH RATHOR..... Respondent 23 AND + W.P.(C) 14902/2021 & CM APPLs. 47081-82/2021

VERSUS

SHRI GAURAV DUBEY..... Respondent 24 WITH + W.P.(C) 14903/2021 & CM APPLs. 47083-84/2021 SECURITRANS INDIA (P) LTD..... Petitioner versus SHRI MANOJ KUMAR YADAV..... Respondent 25 WITH + W.P.(C) 14904/2021 & CM APPLs. 47085-86/2021 SECURITRANS INDIA (P) LTD..... Petitioner versus SHRI CHANDER BHAN SINGH CHAUHAN..... Respondent 2021:DHC:4374 27 AND + W.P.(C) 15007/2021 & CM APPLs. 47369-70/2021

VERSUS

SHRI RAHUL..... Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. These are six petitions filed by the Petitioner-Management (hereinafter “Management”) challenging the order dated 22nd November, 2021 passed by the Labour Court in LIR No.2920/19, 2921/19, 2922/19, 2023/19, 2925/19 & 2926/19 whereby an application which was filed by the Management for framing of an additional issue in the proceedings before the Labour Court, and for deciding the said issue as a preliminary issue was partly allowed.

3. In this matter, the Respondents-Workmen (hereinafter “Workmen”), who were working with the Petitioner at various ATMs, were terminated after a disciplinary inquiry was held by the Petitioner. The said termination was challenged by the Workmen before the Labour Court. In the said claims filed by the Workmen, the terms of reference were framed on 3rd October,

2019. The matter was thereafter proceeded before the Labour Court. On 1st October, 2021, the following issues were framed: “(1) Whether the workman is not covered under definition of a "workman" as defined under Section 2 (s) of I.D. Act? OPM. (2) Whether the services of workman have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated by the management? OPW. (3) If the answer to the aforesaid issue is in affirmative, then as to what monetary or any other consequential relief and benefits, the workman is entitled? OPW. ( 4) In terms of reference. (5) Relief.”

4. Since the Workmen had been terminated after a proper internal inquiry which was held by the Management, an application was moved by the Management seeking framing of a preliminary issue in respect of the validity and legality of the inquiry. The case of the Management was that as per the settled legal position, the Labour Court ought to frame an issue in respect of the said inquiry and thereafter treat the same as a preliminary issue. The Management relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard. In the said application, the following order was passed by the Labour Court: “An application has been filed by the management to frame preliminary issue with respect to validity of inquiry. Reply of the application is filed by the workman denying the contentions and praying to dismiss the application. Arguments heard on the application and gone through the judgment relied by the management in support of contentions. The issues in this case were framed on 01.10.2021. Though the issue raised regarding the inquiry is well covered under the issue no. 2 regarding illegal termination of the workman by the management but in view of the specific objections of the management in the written statement, an additional issue vide issue no. 1 A is framed as under: - Issue No. 1A: Whether the inquiry conducted against the workman by the management was biased, unfair and not in consonance with the principles of natural justice? OPW As regards, the prayer to frame the issue of inquiry as preliminary issue, the request is disallowed as the issue pertains to issue of law and facts. Application is disposed off accordingly. Affidavit of the workman by way of evidence filed. Copy supplied to the AR for the management. Put up for examination and cross-examination of the workman on 20.01.2022.”

5. Mr. Arun Mehta, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management, submits that the grievance of the Management is that if the inquiry related issue now framed as issue no.1A, is not decided as a preliminary issue and if the matter is adjudicated upon together finally by the Labour Court, the Management may lose an opportunity to lead evidence in the matter if for any reason, the Labour Court holds that the inquiry was not in accordance with law. He submits that as per the judgments of the Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering Limited v. Shri P.P. Munde, 1975 AIR 1900 and in M.L. Singhla v. Punjab National Bank, AIR 2018 SC 4668, the settled position is that the validity of the domestic inquiry has to be decided as a preliminary issue in the proceedings before the Labour Court. He therefore submits that if the said issue is decided against the Management, the Management ought to be afforded the opportunity to lead independent evidence before the Labour Court to support their case.

6. Advance copies of these petitions have been served upon Mr. Rajesh Khanna who is the Authorized Representative for the Workmen in all these matters. Mr. Mehta, ld. Counsel submits that he had a telephonic conversation with Mr. Khanna who has confirmed the receipt of these petitions. However, none appears for the Workmen.

7. The issuance of further notice in this matter is not deemed appropriate inasmuch as the same would entail further costs for the Workmen. The legal position is settled in this regard in the decisions which have been relied upon by Mr. Mehta. In Cooper Engineering(supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: “ xxx xxx xxx 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 the 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. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding 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.”

8. Similarly, in ML Singhla (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the error of the Labour Court was to not decide the validity and the legality of the domestic inquiry in the first place. The observation of the Supreme Court in the said judgment are also set out below: