Partly allowed

Sandeep Kumawat v. Manager D.B. Corps Ltd.

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2019CW/7793/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench disposed of connected writ petitions challenging a Single Judge order. Court held that if copies of inquiry record were placed before Labor Court before evidence began, they must be considered on merits. Impugned order modified allowing management to submit inquiry report if filed prior. All petitions disposed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; copies of inquiry record to be considered if filed before evidence; all petitions disposed.

Sandeep Kumawat Vs Manager D.B. Corps Ltd. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7352/2019

Ghanshyam Jangid

----Petitioner

Versus

Manager D B Corps Ltd.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6524/2019

¶9

Sandeep Pareek

¶10

----Petitioner Versus Manager ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7144/2019 Rajesh Grovar ----Petitioner Versus Manager, D. B. Corp. Ltd. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7793/2019 Sandeep Kumawat ----Petitioner Versus Manager D.b. Corps Ltd. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Bagri

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

02/07/2019

¶14

In D.B.Special Appeal Writ No. 723/2019 passed following

order:

[CW-7352/2019]

(2 of 4)

“Issue notice. Mr. Dharmendra Jain accepts notice. With consent, the appeal was finally heard.

¶19

The appellant management is aggrieved by an order of the Single Judge who set aside Labour Court’s order permitting it to bring on record the original documents pertaining to a domestic inquiry held against the workman.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that during the pendency of the industrial dispute, the services of the respondent workman were terminated. They applied under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 complaining of violation of Section 33 (1) (b) of the said Act. The management resisted the proceedings and filed its reply.

¶21

During the course of the proceedings, the management applied for producing the original set of inquiry documents in the advanced stage. This move was resisted by the workers: the application was allowed. The order of the Labour Court has been interfered with by the Single Judge.

¶22

During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v S. Balakrishnan (2016) 12 SCC 221 and a Larger Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v Satya Prakash (2013) 9 SCC 232 to say that it is open to the management to prove that the dismissal was after due inquiry and justify the fairness of the inquiry in the course of proceedings under Section 33.

¶23

Learned counsel for the workmen on the other hand relied upon the previous ruling of the Supreme Court in Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v Shankarprasad (1999) 6 SCC 275 and submitted that the court pointedly held that the only relevant issue to be decided is under Section 33A, in the context of complaint regarding violation of Section 33 (1) (b) is

¶24

[CW-7352/2019]

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

that whether the management in fact applied under the provisions at all or not and if not, issue appropriate consequential orders granting relief.

¶27

During the course of hearing it was asserted by the management that the documents in the form of copy of the inquiry record were already placed before the Labour Court well before the conclusion of evidence. This aspect is not very clear from the pleadings. The court is of the opinion that since there is a certain degree of informality in the procedure adopted by the Labour Court, which has been repeatedly emphasized that it need not conform strictly with the provision of the Civil Procedure Code - as long as the copies of the inquiry record, were part of the Labour Court’s file and were brought on record before the commencement of the evidence, there can be no objection to its due consideration and decision on the over-all merits of the case.

¶28

In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. It is hereby directed that in the event the management had in fact filed the copies of inquiry record and the inquiry report prior to commencement of recording of evidence, they shall be taken into account and submissions on that aspect too shall be duly gone into on merits. All contentions on merits are kept open. The impugned order is modified, and the appeal, allowed to that extent. All applications are disposed of. “

¶29

Both the counsel agree that the order passed by Single Bench has been modified relating to three writ petitions which arises out of the same order which is impugned in the present petition. In view of above, both the counsels jointly pray that the present matter may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench.

¶30

[CW-7352/2019]

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

This court is satisfied that the present cases are governed by

¶33

the said order. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed in D.B.Special Appeal Writ

¶34

No. 723/2019 decided on 28.5.2019.

¶35

The labour Court shall act accordingly.