Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)Cooper Engineering Limited vs Shri P. P. Mundhe on 20 August, 1975
17. The learned counsel for respondent No.1
while placing reliance on the judgment reported in AIR
1975 SC 1900 [The Cooper Engineering Ltd., Vs. P.P.
Mundhe] with specific reference to para 22, contends
24
that on a decision being pronounced on a preliminary
issue whether the Domestic Enquiry is violative of
principles of natural justice or not, it is for the
management to decide whether it would 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 and
that there will be no justification for any party to stall
the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour
Court. These observations were made in the anxiety
that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication.
Therefore, it is pleaded that by this act of the petitioner,
substantial delay has occurred. However, the judgment
of the Supreme Court would not be applicable to the
case on hand. In the present case, the charge sheet
was issued as far back as 1985. The Disciplinary
Authority has passed an order in the year 1991, after
which the workman died. The present petition is filed
questioning the order of the Tribunal passed in the year
2005. We are in the year 2013. At this stage to hold
25
that the proceedings should be concluded only in order
to ensure that undue delay does not occur in the
disposal of the main matter before the Tribunal would
not arise for consideration at all. Having spent eight
long years before this court, it is only just and fair that
the petitioner is entitled to an appropriate order on
merits. To non suit them purely on the ground that
there would be a delay in the adjudication of the matter
before the Tribunal would be wholly improper.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Khardah Co. Ltd vs Their Workmen on 2 May, 1963
19. Reliance is also placed on the judgment
reported in AIR 1964 SC 719 [M/s. Khardah & Co.Ltd.,
Vs. The Workmen] with reference to paras 8 and 9 in
particular, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the judgment rendered in the case of State
of Mysore Vs. Shivabasappa Shivappa reported in AIR
1963 SC 375. That in an enquiry, it is desirable that all
the witnesses on whose testimony, the management
relies upon, in support of its charge, should be
examined in his presence. Recording the evidence in
the presence of the workman serves a very important
purpose. The witness would know that he is giving
evidence for a particular person. Therefore, he is clear
in making any statement. Besides, when evidence is
recorded in the presence of the accused person, there is
no room for persuading the witness to make convenient
statements and it is always easier for an accused person
28
to cross examine the witness if his evidence is recorded
in his presence. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that they would discourage the idea of recording
statement of witnesses ex parte and then producing the
witness before the employee concerned for cross
examination after serving him with such previously
recorded statements even though the witnesses
concerned made a general statement on the earlier
occasion that their statements already recorded
represents what they have stated.
M/S. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd vs Gangadhar And Others on 3 April, 1963
18. Reliance is also placed by the first respondent
on the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 708 [M/s.
Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd., Vs. Gangadhar and Others]
with reference to para 15 to contend that the issue
sought to be advanced herein is that in so far as
the statements that have been held against the
workman is concerned that substantial opportunity
should be given to him. In the judgment relied upon,
the statement of the witnesses were read over to
the workman and they were asked then and there
to cross examine the witnesses. Keeping in mind
26
the background of the workman and the presumption
that they would be unable to comprehend the statement
and the allegations made against them since they are
mere workman and who do not necessarily have a
capacity to understand the charges made against them,
to expect them to cross examine the witnesses then and
there itself, would certainly amount to violating the
rules of natural justice. It is for these reasons, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the failure to cross
examine the witnesses immediately after their
statements were recorded is fatal to the management.
However, the facts of the present case are different.
There was absolutely no pressure on the workman to
cross examine the witness then and there itself. The
witness Sri K.M. Mathew was examined on 25.06.1987.
The matter was adjourned for cross examination five
months later namely on 4.11.1987. Therefore, on facts,
the same could be distinguished. There was no
pressure on the workman to cross examine him on the
very same day. Five months time was granted. Under
27
these circumstances and in view of the principles
enunciated therein, I'am of the considered view that it
would not be applicable to the case on hand.
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
15. The learned single judge also relied on the
judgment reported in (1996) 3 SCC 364 in the case of
State Bank of Patiala Vs. S.K. Sharma and was of the
view that no prejudice has been caused to the
delinquent therein by such non-examination. The
refusal to cross examine the bank's witness was not on
the ground that the copies of the statement of the
witnesses was not furnished but on the ground that
they require an adjournment. The plea of adjournment
22
having been considered and rejected, it cannot therefore
be contended otherwise. Therefore, the learned single
judge therein held that the contention of the workman
that there is denial of a reasonable opportunity to cross
examine the bank's witness was rejected as being bereft
of merits. This order of the learned single judge was
questioned in Writ Appeal No.646/2001 c/w. Writ
Appeal No.687/2001, wherein the division bench
dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 17.06.2002.
Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned single
judge and as affirmed by the division bench, so far as
the issue pertaining to violation of principles of natural
justice in non supply of the statement of Sri K.M.
Mathew and his non examination having been narrated
by the earlier order of this court, the same would be
binding on this court. Therefore, so far as the issue of
non examination of this witness is concerned, the
contention urged by the learned counsel for the
respondent cannot be accepted. Hence, the finding
recorded by the Tribunal in so far as holding that the
23
non examination of Sri K.M. Mathew has led to violation
of rules of natural justice is without any basis. It is
perverse and un-sustainable.
Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc vs Vikram Cement Etc on 8 July, 2008
H.C. Sarin vs Union Of India on 14 April, 1976
14. The learned single judge by placing reliance
on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of H.C.
Sarin Vs. Union of India reported in 1976(4) SCC 765,
which relied on the statement made by Lord Denning,
and held that the rules of natural justice must not be
stretched too far. Only too often the people who have
done wrong seek to invoke the rules of natural justice so
as to avoid the consequences.
D.P. Maheshwari vs Delhi Administration And Others on 25 July, 1980
That cannot be a bar to prevent questioning
such an order by either one of the parties. The
repercussion is a prolonged dispute pending before the
Tribunal. But the law as it stands presently does not
create any bar to hold that a preliminary order passed
by the Tribunal is not justiciable. Therefore, I'am of the
considered view that the said judgment would not be
applicable.
Motor Industries Co. Ltd. vs D. Adinarayanappa And Anr. on 23 January, 1978
In the order passed by the learned
Single Judge reported in 1978(1) LLJ 443 [Motor
Industries Co.Ltd., Vs. D.Adinarayanappa and
another] the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Cooper Engineering Ltd.,
Vs. P.P.Mundhe reported in 1975-II LLJ 379,
was considered wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that it would be legitimate for
the High Court to refuse to interfere at the
preliminary stage namely at the stage when an
order on a preliminary issue with regard to
whether the enquiry is fair or not is ordered.
However, a reading of the said Judgment would
not indicate that the High Court should not
interfere when such interim orders passed by
the tribunal. There is no bar to go into the
veracity of the order passed on the preliminary
issue. Even otherwise the order passed by the
38
tribunal on the preliminary issue is justiciable.
It is a legal right of not only the workman but
also of the management. Therefore to deny the
said right and to decline from interfering at the
stage when a preliminary order is passed would
be wholly opposed to law.