MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

                        Vs.

                        Industrial Court (Madhya Pradesh)
                          In Misc. Petn. No. 649 of 1966

(Bishambhar Dayal, C.J. and A.P. Sen, J.)

                        15.10.1969

                        JUDGMENT

Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.

1. This is a petition by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
challenging an order of the Labor Court, Jabalpur, and the revisional order by the
Industrial Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore directing the reinstatement of
respondent No. 3 Nandkishore Sahu, who was a conductor of one of the buses. The
incident took place on the 29th October 1958 and respondent No. 3 has been
reinstated by order of the Labor Court dated 13th January 1966. The matter is,
therefore, quite old. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner before us
that orders were issued for reinstatement of respondent No. 3; but learned counsel for
both the sides are unable to say whether he has actually joined service or what is the
exact present position with regard to his reinstatement. Learned counsel for the
applicant has stated that the applicant-Corporation is not anxious necessarily to
terminate the service of the respondent No. 3 if he has joined service and is doing
satisfactory work.

2. The Labor Court has set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the
domestic enquiry was not fair. The finding is based on two facts. In the first place, the
finding is that no opportunity to produce defense witnesses was given to the
respondent and in the second place the order of the officer conducting the domestic
enquiry is not a speaking order and it merely says in one sentence that upon enquiry
the charges have been proved without considering the evidence and without giving
any reasons for coming to that conclusion.
3. So far as the first point is concerned, the fact is that on the date of the enquiry the
respondent No. 3 was asked the question as to whether he want-ed to produce defense
witnesses. He stated that the enquiry should be conducted at the site where the
occurrence took place. This was taken by the Enquiry Officer as meaning that he did
not want to give any evidence. The Labor Court has not read this answer in that sense.
The Labor Court is of opinion that by this answer the respondent No. 3 wanted to say
that he might be able to produce evidence if the enquiry was conducted at the site and
that, therefore, the possibility of his producing evidence cannot be ruled out. We are
unable to say that this interpretation of the Labor Court is necessarily wrong. It should
have been made clear to him that he should produce evidence there if he so liked. On
the second point also we have seen the order of the officer conducting the domestic
enquiry. The order is very short and does not give any reason for holding that the
charges had been proved. The Enquiry Officer has not even mentioned the names of
witnesses or the nature of evidence that was produced before him on the basis of
which he found the charges proved. We are, therefore, unable to hold that this part of
the decision of the Labor Court was without jurisdiction or patently wrong in law.

4. It was further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that after coming to
the above conclusion on the preliminary issues about the nature of the domestic
enquiry, the Labor Court should have given an opportunity to the applicant to prove
the merits of the charges before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was not right in ordering
reinstatement without going into the facts and coming to a conclusion that the charges
were in fact not proved either in the domestic enquiry or before the Tribunal itself.
Learned counsel has relied for this proposition on M. P. S. R. T. Corporation, Bhopal
and another v. State Industrial Court, M. P., Indore and others 1 a decision of a
Division Bench of this Court. We think that this is a very salutary practice to be
adopted by the Labor Courts. After all, a delinquent, who is in fact guilty, should not
be imposed upon the employer without coming to a finding that the charges have not
been proved. If the domestic enquiry is defective and an opportunity to prove the
charges before the Labor Court is not given to the employer, the only result would be
that the employer would have to start a fresh enquiry and this process may go on
several times and every time the enquiry may be found to be defective. This would
cause loss both to the employer and the employee. It is a healthy practice, therefore,
after coming to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not proper, to give an
opportunity to the employer to produce evidence before the Labor Court itself and for
the Labor Court to come to a final conclusion whether the charges were proved or not.
5. Since the applicant was not given an opportunity to prove the charges before the
Labor Court, we think that this is a proper case in which to set aside the order of the
Labor Court dated 13th January 1966 and the revisional order of the Industrial Court
dated 2nd September 1966. These orders are accordingly set aside and the case is sent
back to the Labor Court for giving an opportunity to the applicant to prove the guilt of
the respondent No, 3, if necessary. In the circumstances of the case, parties will bear
their own costs. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to
the petitioner.
Order accordingly.

Cases Referred.

1. 1969 MPLJ 17 (M. P, No. 491 of 1968. D/d. 9.8.1968