Employer Has Right To Lead Evidence Even After Faulty Domestic Enquiry: MP HC

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single bench of Justice Vivek Jain dismissed a petition filed by a workers' union against an award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The award was passed in favour of a dismissed worker. He was dismissed on account of unauthorized absence and the CGIT had upheld his dismissal. The Court held that an employer can lead evidence before a tribunal to make his case even if the original domestic enquiry is held invalid. It clarified that the labour court must decide upon the industrial dispute and not merely the validity of a specific dismissal/termination. Background The petitioner, M.P. Rashtriya Manganese Mazdoor Sangh, challenged an award passed by the CGIT that upheld the termination of a worker by Manganese Ore Ltd. The worker was dismissed in 1997 for unauthorized absence, as he failed to report to his transferred location. The petitioner said that the CGIT had vitiated the enquiry against the worker on procedural grounds in 2015, but later allowed the employer to lead evidence to establish the alleged misconduct. They challenged this before the Court. Arguments The petitioner argued that the CGIT's decision to permit the employer to lead evidence (particularly after it had invalidated the original enquiry) was improper. The petitioner maintained that a defective charge sheet renders the whole enquiry void. This, they argued, would call for reinstatement of the worker. They further pointed out that the employer's written statement never specifically sought permission to tender evidence, and they were thus not permitted to do so now. The respondent countered by relying on Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. ((1973)1 SCC 813), to argue that even when a domestic enquiry is invalid, the employer retains the right to adduce evidence before the tribunal. It was submitted that the CGIT appropriately exercised its discretion in permitting this. The respondent emphasized that the worker had rejected offers of reemployment, and had also subsequently enrolled as an advocate. This, they argued, evidenced his wilful absence. Court's Reasoning The court cited Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., which permits employers to present evidence before a tribunal even if a domestic enquiry is found to be defective. Consequently, the court held that the tribunal must allow both employer and employee to adduce evidence to determine the legality and validity of the termination order. Explaining the rationale, the court said that the Labour court must decide upon the industrial dispute and not merely the validity of a specific dismissal/termination. The court also addressed the petitioner's claim that reinstatement was mandatory after the domestic enquiry was invalidated. Relying on Motipur Sugar Factory v. Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 1803), the court clarified that the tribunal has a composite role. Its mandate includes assessing not just the procedural validity of the dismissal but the substantive merits of the misconduct allegations. It concluded that the CGIT was justified in allowing the party to establish their case with new evidence. Moreover, the court dismissed the argument that the respondent did not apply at the earliest opportunity for permission to lead evidence. Instead, it noted that the respondent's written statement clearly sought permission. The court then justified the CGIT's initial reluctance to allow this, and its subsequent approval, as a valid exercise of judicial discretion. The court also reviewed the worker's personal circumstances and professional conduct after termination. It acknowledged the worker's refusal of reemployment and his decision to pursue a legal career. Consequently, it concluded that the petitioner's extended absence, despite available facilities at the transferred location, constituted wilful misconduct. Thus, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the CGIT's order. Decided on: 02-12-2024 Case No.: W.P. No. 17024/2020, M.P. Rashtriya Manganese Mazdoor Sangh v. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Anoop Nair, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shreyas Dubey and Ms. Gunjan NaikCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 327 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Employer Has Right To Lead Evidence Even After Faulty Domestic Enquiry: MP HC

Pranav Kumar

Tags