Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Advocate Moharir for the petitioners has appointed out that the learned Labour Court has mechanically held that the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer are perverse. He states that in order to record such a finding it was obligatory for the Labour Court to first discuss the evidence which was available before the Enquiry Officer and then to consider the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer in his report on the basis of that evidence. He contends that the learned Labour Court has not tried to co-relate any findings of Enquiry Officer with the evidence adduced before it. He contends that the Labour Court has acted as an independent authority and has applied its own mind and has invented a total new story which was never pleaded or raised by the respondent No. 1 before the Enquiry Officer. He contends that thus, the Labour Court has acted without jurisdiction in applying its own logic to the facts and circumstances of the case. He further states that the learned Member of the Industrial Court has also ignored this aspect of the matter. He contends that two vital documents were procured by the petitioners to show as to how application of mind by learned Labour Court is totally erroneous. He states that both these documents together clearly reveal that there was no other school at village Mainithana and, therefore, the reasoning given by Labour Court to ignore the replies received by the petitioners in reply to its queries before issuance of charge-sheet was clearly unsustainable and arbitrary. According to him, the learned Member of the Industrial Court ought to have permitted production of these two documents and further ought to have permitted the petitioners to examine necessary witnesses to prove these two documents.

10. Advocate Moharir for petitioners points out that the certificate which is produced by respondent No. 1 before the Enquiry Officer is dated 15-10-1980 and it is in relation to a school in Saunsar Tehsil in Chindwara District. He states that Saunsar was the part of Madhya Pradesh State after the State Reorganization in 1961 and official language there was Hindi. He, therefore, states that certificate ought to have been in hindi and in any case that certificate could not have been in Marathis. He further states that in view of the reason given by Labour Court about existence of two schools at village Mainithana, the petitioner has made further inquiries and had procured documents to show that there was only one school at village Mainithana and it was Government Primary School and further it was established in 1972. He, therefore, states that this document clearly shows that there was no such school at village Mainithana prior to 1972 and, therefore, respondent No. 1 could not have taken education at village Mainithana in any such school between 6th July, 1963 to 30th April, 1967. He, therefore, contends that the learned Member of the Industrial Court ought to have permitted him to produced this document on record and to examine witnesses to prove this document as they falsify the reasoning given by Labour Court to ignore the replies sent by Government Primary School, Mainithana to the queries and enquirers made by the petitioners. It is apparent that the learned Member of the Industrial Court ought to have considered this request favourably. However, the learned Member of the Industrial Court has also not perused the enquiry report or the defence of employee during enquiry and has upheld the order of Labour Court mechanically.