Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pradeep Kumawat vs Manager D. B. Corp Ltd on 8 April, 2019
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4120/2019
Pradeep Kumawat, Aged About 41 Years, Dwara Bhartiya Trade
Union Kendra Majdoor Kishan Bhawan Shanti Nagar, Hatwara
Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Manager D. B. Corp Ltd., 10 J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur
----Respondent
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2672/2019 Shilendra Upadhyay, Aged About 38 Years, Dwara Bhartiya Trade Union Kendra Majdoor Kishan Bhawan Shanti Nagar, Hatwara Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus Manager D B Corp Ltd, 10 J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur
----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2673/2019 Ritesh Gautam, Aged About 42 Years, Dwara Bhartiya Trade Union Kendra Majdoor Kishan Bhawan Shanti Nagar, Hatwara Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus Manager D B Corp Ltd, 10 J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dharmendra Jain, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Nitish Kumar Bagri, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order 08/04/2019 (D.B. SAW/723/2019 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:13:08 PM) (2 of 8) [CW-4120/2019]
1. The present batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 04.01.2019, 07.01.2019 and 04.01.2019 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.4120/2019, 2672/2019 and 2673/2019 respectively. The petitioners have common grievance and as such the present writ petitions are being decided by the common order. The Labour Court by these orders, has allowed the application filed by the respondent- employer for placing certified copies of documents on record.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present cases are that the employee-petitioners have filed separate applications under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the ID Act") for declaring their orders of termination to be illegal and violative of Section 33(1)(b) of the ID Act. The respondent- employer had filed reply to the said applications and evidence was led by both the parties and evidence was closed on 08.08.2018 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4120/2019, on 24.09.2018 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2672/2019 and on 26.06.2018 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2673/2019.
3. The Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal after closing the evidence, had fixed 23.10.2018 as next date for hearing the main applications and both the parties were to address in respect of the dispute, which was raised with respect to the violation of various provisions of the ID Act, while terminating the services of the petitioners-employees.
4. The dispute arose after the applications were filed by the respondent-employer on 01.11.2018 and 03.12.2018, where request was made that certified copies of certain documents were (D.B. SAW/723/2019 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:13:08 PM) (3 of 8) [CW-4120/2019] required to be placed for consideration before the Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal. The Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal by the impugned orders has allowed the said applications and the documents which have been filed thereto, have been taken on record and their impact/validity is to be considered at the time of finally deciding the application under Section 33-A of the ID Act. The Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal has also afforded an opportunity to the petitioners-employees to file the relevant evidence or to controvert the evidence, which is allowed by way of application, whereby documents have been taken on record, filed on behalf of the respondent-employer.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Dharmendra Jain submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal, are illegal orders and after the evidence was closed from both the sides, there was no occasion to allow the applications of the respondent-employer to take certain documents/certified copies on record.
6. Counsel argued that the procedure adopted by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal while permitting the applications at the fag end of the main application, will delay the proceedings and further the re-hearing of entire issue will be done and by such method the rights of the petitioners-employees, will be frustrated as their services have already been terminated in illegal manner.
7. Counsel further argued that the Labour Court-cum-Industrial is required to follow the summary procedure and by permitting such applications to be filed at the fag end of the proceedings, the (D.B. SAW/723/2019 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:13:08 PM) (4 of 8) [CW-4120/2019] very purpose of settlement of dispute in speedy manner is frustrated.
8. Counsel argued that the respondent-employer had ample opportunity to produce documents before the closure of evidence and having failed to do so, no liberty should be granted to the respondent-employer to re-open the entire case and to initiate proceedings by leading the evidence again.
9. Per contra, Mr.Nitish Kumar Bagri, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-employer submitted that the relevant Photostat copies of the documents were filed and inadvertently if the certified copies were not placed, the same right could be availed by the respondent-employer by placing the documents on record by filing proper application.
10. Counsel argued that closure of evidence of both the parties did not mean that relevant documents cannot be brought on record before final arguments take place in the case or the main applications are decided.
11. Counsel further argued that the respondent-employer was absolutely within its domain to prove that its action of terminating the services of the petitioners-employees was justified and the record which was available with the respondent-employer, having direct nexus with the validity of the orders being challenged, are always required to be placed before the competent court for arriving at a just and proper conclusion.
12. Counsel argued that the Apex Court in the case of Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs. S.Balakrishnan [Civil Appeal No.1090 of 2016] decided on 10.02.2016 and in (D.B. SAW/723/2019 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:13:08 PM) (5 of 8) [CW-4120/2019] the case of Managing Director, NEKRTC Karnataka Vs. Shivasharanappa [Civil Appeal No.(S) 9956 of 2017] decided on 01.08.2017, has laid down the law that in the domestic enquiry if the application of prior approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act is filed, the proper approval, etc. and facts thereto, are required to be considered by the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. Counsel submits that if such compliance of law is made by filing applications, no objection should be allowed to be raised by the workman concerned.
13. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
14. This court finds that the coordinate Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.24670/2018 [Daleep Kumar & Ors. Vs. Managing Director, D.B.Corp Limited] while passing the order dated 02.01.2019 clearly observed that procedure of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals should not like a regular civil court and attempt should be made to dispose of the cases by the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals as quickly as possible without entering into the complexity of the relevance or irrelevance of the documents at initial stage. The coordinate Bench of this court further observed that if the documents are produced at the time of evidence and later on, after closing of the evidence, further documents are placed on record, the same should not be taken on record by the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals. The relevant portion of the order dated 02.01.2019 is reproduced hereunder:-
"2. For the purpose of quick disposal of the case, method should be adopted by the Tribunal whereby while recording the evidence and documents which are produced, may be (D.B. SAW/723/2019 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:13:08 PM) (6 of 8) [CW-4120/2019] taken on record at the relevant time itself and attempt should be made to dispose of the case as quickly as possible without entering into the complexity of the relevance or irrelevance of the documents at that stage. It is noticed that the cases are pending before the Labour Court and Tribunals for more than ten years and even case of more than 20 years remained pending, the delay in disposal of the cases by the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Court, results in defeating the very purpose for which the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal have been formed. It is neither in the interest of management nor in the interest of concerned person that case long delay in disposal of cases by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts.
3. Without further adverting to the aforesaid aspect, it is now directed that keeping in view the aforesaid observation, labour Court shall proceed to decide the present case which is required to be disposed of prior to 31.3.2019 in terms of the directions issued by Apex Court in relation to the cases arising out of Majithia Committee. Accordingly, the order relating to the award of cost is set aside. Further proceedings shall continue and case shall be disposed of at the earliest. Both the parties may submit their documents which they would like to submit at the time of evidence and after the evidence is closed, no further documents shall be taken on record by the Tribunal."
15. Mr.Nitish Kumar Bagri, counsel appearing for the respondent- employer submitted that the said judgment was passed by the coordinate Bench in view of the fact that time bound direction was given by the Apex Court to decide the applicability of wages, as per Majithia Wage Board and as such in the peculiar facts of the case, the coordinate Bench did not allow the cost which was imposed while allowing the documents to be taken on record and direction was given to the courts to conclude the proceedings as quickly as possible.
16. In the present case, this court finds that if the evidence of both the parties were closed and the matter was posted for final hearing, the Labour Court ought not to have allowed the (D.B. SAW/723/2019 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:13:08 PM) (7 of 8) [CW-4120/2019] applications of the respondent-employer for taking documents on record. It is within the domain of each party to place on record the relevant documents and proper application is also required to be filed for bringing such documents on record at the relevant time but not at the stage of final hearing of the case.
17. The Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal are not functioning like a Civil Court and they are also not bound by the rigours of procedure which are ordained in Civil Procedure Code. The purpose of Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal is to decide the dispute of the workman in expeditious manner. It is equally true that opportunity has to be given to both the parties i.e. the employee and the employer, however, the procedure adopted by the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal to extend the time by granting opportunity to the employer to lead evidence when the matter is ripe for hearing, the very purpose of approaching the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal by the employee against termination of his service, is frustrated.
18. This court finds that if the matter was already posted for final hearing, no opportunity ought to have been given by permitting the respondent-employer to even produce the certified copies of the documents on record at such belated stage.
19. This court finds that the impugned orders passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal are not in accordance with the law and against the very spirit of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
20. Consequently, all the writ petitions stand allowed and the impugned orders dated 04.01.2019, 07.01.2019 and 04.01.2019 (D.B. SAW/723/2019 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:13:08 PM) (8 of 8) [CW-4120/2019] assailed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition Nos.4120/2019, 2672/2019 and 2673/2019 respectively are set aside.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J DALPAT SINGH SOLANKI /8/ 53 to 55.
(D.B. SAW/723/2019 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 27/06/2019 at 11:13:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)