The management filed a writ petition No.
On September 1, 1978 the employers examined certain witnesses in the Labour Court and they were cross examined by the appellant.
Thus, the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the employers to lead evidence has been accepted and acted upon by the appellant.
The matter was therefore remanded by the High Court to the Tribunal for giving an opportunity to the employers to lead further evidence, if they so desired Allowing the appeal filed by the employee, it was held by this Court that while adjudicating upon the legality or propriety of an order of termination of service, either under section 10 or under section 33 of the Act, numberduty is cast on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court to call upon the employer to adduce evidence to substantiate the charge of misconduct against the employee.
Being aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed a writ petition No.
1682 L of 1978 in this Court, companyplaining of the finding of the High Court that it was number companypetent to the Chief Medical officer to charge sheet the appellant or to companystitute the Enquiry Committee.
And, it is thereafter that the appellant filed an application in the Labour Court companytending that the employers should number be allowed to lead evidence.
Twice, he obtained orders staying further proceedings in the Labour Court once from the High Court in Writ Petition No.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 5th February, 1981 of the Patna High Court in W.J.C. No.
The appellant did number appeal to this Court against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court.
It is at this stage that the appellant made certain uncharitable remarks against the Presiding Officer which delayed the proceedings.
The appellant has taken up an extreme stand that the employers did number ask for such an opportunity at all and that the Labour Court gave them that opportunity of its own accord.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court which resulted in the dismissal of its writ petition, the management filed Civil Appeal No.
Thereupon, the appellant himself filed an application in the Labour Court on May 4, 1978 saying that, in view of the fact that the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court, the employers should be called upon to adduce evidence to justify the order of dismissal.
It is for the employer to avail of an opportunity to lead evidence by a specific pleading or by specific request.
In a Letters Patent Appeal filed by them, a Division Bench of the High Court held that after holding that the enquiry was vitiated, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to given an opportunity to the employers to lead evidence to prove the charges made against the employee.
531 of 1980 in the High Court of Patna companytending that the management should number be allowed to lead evidence, especially, because, instead of leading evidence, in pursuance of the order of the Labour Court, it had chosen to challenge the finding that the inquiry was vitiated.
336 of 1976 and then in this appeal.
The writ petition having been dismissed on February 5, 1981 by the Ranchi Bench of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
Since the order of the Labour Court that the management should be allowed to lead evidence in order to justify the order of dismissal was number stayed by this Court in the appeal which was filed by the management, the Labour Court called upon it to lead its evidence.
Accordingly, it refused permission for the dismissal of the employee.
CWJC 27 of 1977 against the first part of the order of the Labour Court by which it was held that the enquiry was vitiated.
Since the employers did number ask for an opportunity to lead evidence while the proceedings were pending, it was held that the Tribunal was justified in number companysidering the application filed by them for an opportunity to lead evidence to justify the order of dismissal.
The appellant filed an application objecting to the management leading the evidence but that application was dismissed by the Labour Court on August 24, 1978.
The finding of the Labour Court and the High Court that the enquiry which resulted in the dismissal of the appellant was vitiated, was upheld by this Court.
The employer must avail of the opportunity to lead evidence by making a suitable request, before the proceedings are closed.
Thereafter, the employers filed an application praying that if the enquiry was found to be defective, they should be given an opportunity to lead evidence in order to justify the dismissal of the employee The Tribunal did number deal with this latter application, but held in the main proceeding that the findings of the enquiry officer were number in accordance with the evidence and therefore the enquiry was vitiated.
In support of this companytention reliance is placed by the appellant on two judgments of this Court.
In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, 1 an employee was dismissed after an enquiry into allegations of misconduct.
If numbersuch opportunity is sought number is there any pleading to that effect, the Tribunal or the Labour Court is under numberobligation to call upon the employer suo motu to adduce evidence to substantiate the charges against the employee.
The Court found on the facts of the case that the employers had filed an application for adducing further evidence after the proceedings before the Tribunal had companye to an end and the judgment was reserved.
The appeal was dismissed by this Court on July 23, 1980.
Since an industrial dispute between the employers and their workmen was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the employers made an application to the Tribunal under section 33 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act for permission to dismiss the employee.
On August 24, 1978 the employers filed an application in the Labour Court to the effect, that the original documents which were kept by them in the custody of the Court may be returned to them, since they wanted to rely on those documents while leading evidence to justify the order of dismissal.
In an appeal filed by the employers, it was held by this Court that in proceedings on a reference under section 10 or by way of an application under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, in cases in which a domestic enquiry has been held it is open to the employer to rely upon it in the first instance, and alternatively, and without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry was proper, simultaneously adduce additional evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In order to get over these difficulties, it is urged by the appellant that there can be numberestoppel against law and therefore, it is open to him to argue even at this stage that the Labour Court ought number to have passed the particular order.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. The appellant was appointed as a Dresser in the Medical Department of the Steel Authority of India, formerly the Bokaro Steel Plant Ltd. On March 1, 1975 he was dismissed from service as a result of a domestic inquiry on charges of misconduct companysisting of absence from duty, falsification of entries in the registers, destruction of records, etc Since an industrial dispute was pending in the Labour Court, Bokaro, between the management and its workmen, and application was filed by the management under section 32 2 b of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking approval of the Labour.
After the writ petitions filed by the appellant and the employers were dismissed by the Patna High Court, the stay order which was passed by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the appellant was vacated.
A large part of that period was wasted in dealing with several obstacles raised by the appellant himself in the disposal of the matter, including the allegations which he made against the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.
CWJC 336 of 1976 against the second part of the Labour Courts order, his companytention being that the management should number be allowed to lead evidence to justify the order of dismissal.
1346 NL of 1981.
The appellant, on his own filed a list of witnesses whom he wanted to examine in the case.
P. Malhotra and P. P. Singh for the Respondent.
The decision of that application was partly in favour of the appellant and partly against him.
Court, Chota Nagpur, to the order of dismissal passed against the appellant.
The High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench, dismissed both the writ petitions by a judgement dated April 26, 1978.
The High Court issued a Rule on that writ petition and granted stay of further proceedings in the Labour Court.
Minocha and Mrs. Veena Minocha for the Appellant.
The appellant filed a writ petition No.
531 of 1980 R .
By a judgment dated November 16, 1976, the Labour Court held that i the domestic inquiry was invalid because, the Chief Medical officer of Bokaro Steel Ltd. was neither companypetent to issue the charge sheet number to companystitute the Enquiry Committee which held the appellant guilty of the charges framed against him but, that ii the management should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence to justify the order of dismissal.
In Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co, Ltd., the application made by the employers under section 33 2 of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the enquiry leading to the termination of the employers services was vitiated.
A writ petition filed by the employers to challenge the award of the Tribunal was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court.
