ABT Parcel Service10/13-15 Kalingarayan StreetRamnagar (Post)Coimbatore – 641 009 v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Madurai & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11.2.2009CORAM:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.5578 of 2000ABT Parcel Service10/13-15 Kalingarayan StreetRamnagar (Post)Coimbatore – 641 009.. PetitionerVs.1.The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Madurai.2.V.Maduraiveeran .. Respondents Prayer :Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of certiorari to call for the records of thefirst respondent in IA No.207/99 in ID No.104/95 and quash itsorder dated 04.2.2000.For Petitioner ::Mr. Karthik M/s T.S.Gopalan & Co. For Respondents :: Mr.S.Senthilnathan – R2O R D E RThe petitioner Management aggrieved by the order passed bythe first respondent Labour Court in I.A.No.207 of 1999 inID.No.104 of 1995 dated 04.02.2000, the present writ petition hasbeen filed. 2.The second respondent was dismissed from service by thepetitioner Management on 18.11.1994. This was on the ground thatas a Driver of the Cargo vehicle, he had accommodated passengers,thereby bringing the Company to a grave risk for being prosecutedby the authorities. Before the dismissal, the petitionerManagement conducted an enquiry. When the second respondentraised a dispute before the Government Labour Officer, theconciliation could not end in any settlement. Therefore, he gavea failure report. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. On the strength of the failure report, the petitionerfiled a claim statement before the Labour Court. The Labour Courttook the dispute in I.D.No.104 of 1995 and issued notice to thepetitioner Management. The Petitioner Management filed a counterstatement dated 14.2.1996. In the counter statement, they raiseda plea in paragraph No.10 that in case the Labour Court decidesthe preliminary issues regarding the validity of the enquiryagainst them, they may be given permission to lead fresh evidencein accordance with law. 4.Thereafter the Management filed an Interim Applicationbeing I.A.No.207 of 1999 asking the Labour Court to decide thevalidity of the domestic enquiry conducted by them as apreliminary issues on its application dated 24.7.1999. Thecontesting respondent workman filed a counter dated 19.7.1999. Itwas the stand of the workman that all the issues can be heardtogether and there need not be any preliminary issue withreference to the domestic enquiry. They also placed reliance onthe Judgment of the Supreme Court in M/S CIPAL LTD., AND OTHERSAND RIPU DAMAN BHANOT AND ANOTHER reported in 1999 (82) FLR PAGE225. There the observation found in paragraph No.13 is to theeffect that the Labour Court should decide all the issues togetherand shall not split the issues into preliminary or non-preliminaryissues so that the procedure may come to an end at the earliest,was referred to. The Labour Court placing reliance upon thoseobservation and also the Division Bench decision of this Court inW.A.No.2154 of 1999 dated 8.2.1999, which has since been reportedin 2001-volume 1-LLJ page 881 (PATTARAISWAMY S vS. MGMT. OFSUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD.), in paragraph No.24, it was stated thatit was well within the discretion of the Tribunal to try or not totry a preliminary issue as regards the validity of the domesticenquiry. 5.Apparently, the said decision had not taken into accountthe earlier decision of this Court reported in MADURAI-DEVAKOTTAITRANSPORT PRIVATE LTD., Vs LABOUR COURT, Madurai and another,reported in 1976 2 Labour Law Journal 447. In that Judgment, theDivision Bench of this Court had observed as follows: "Unfortunately, the second respondent does notappear either in person or by counsel. But it isclear that we have got to tell the Presiding Officer,Labour Court, to follow the proper procedure asenvisaged by Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P.Mundhe,(1975-II L.L.J.379); (1975) 48 F.J.R.152. When as aresult of a domestic enquiry, there is a dismissal orremoval from service of a workman and the matter takesthe shape of an industrial dispute, the PresidingOfficer has first to see whether the domestic enquirywas properly held in accordance with the norms of theprinciples of natural justice and if there was anydefect or violation of such principles of naturaljustice. Ofcourse, when this question itself is in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ controversy, the Presiding Officer will be justifiedin taking evidence confined to that question. Thecomplaint before us is that, without adopting thatcourse, and satisfying himself whether the domesticenquiry was proper in that sense, the PresidingOfficer has called upon the parties to adduceevidence on the merits. If that is so, this will beerroneous. We direct the Presiding Officer to followthe procedure as laid down in Cooper Engineering Ltd.v. P.P.Mundhe, (supra) before proceeding further.There will be an order accordingly. No costs."6.In the present case, the Management contended that if atthis stage any evidence will have to be let in, that will be atime consuming process and the Management must know definitelywhether the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiryis fair and proper. In case the issues are to be decided infavour of the Management, then there is no scope for furtherevidence. Since the proviso to section 11-A of the I.D.Act barthe Court from looking into any other material other than thematerial on record. They have also made an alternative plea thatif the Labour Court should decide the preliminary issue againstthe Management, they must be permitted to lead fresh evidence. 7.Whether one likes it or not, the labour Court will have tofollow the dictum of the Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd.,Vs. P.P.Mundhe reported in 1975 (31) F.L.R. 188 which was referredto by the Division Bench Judgment in the case cited above. Thatis why the Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering's case hasforewarned the High Courts from entertaining any writ petitionagainst preliminary orders and hs also permitted parties to cometo the High Court after the final award.8. In that view of the matter and in the light of thedecision referred to above, the writ petition stands allowed. Theimpugned order of the Labour Court stands set aside. The firstrespondent Labour Court is hereby directed to decide thepreliminary issue raised by the Management in terms of theI.A.No.207 OF 1999 in I.D.No.104 of 1995, within a period of eightweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order afternotice to the parties and thereafter proceed to adjudicate themain dispute within a period of three months thereafter. TheLabour Court shall give preference to the disposal of the I.D. asit is already 14 years old. However, the parties are allowed tobear their own cost.RpaSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Presiding OfficerLabour Court, Madurai.Copy to:-The Section officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.(In case any records are summoned, Registry is directed to return the same immediately).+ 1 cc to M/s T.S. Goapalan & Co., Advocates SR No.5915/09JSV(CO)SR/25.2.2009W.P.No.5578 of 2000