The Management of M/s.Catter Pillar India Private Ltd. & Ors. v. NONE

1.The Presiding Officer,Principal Labour Court, Chennai.2.T.Soundararajan3.The Management ofM/s.Catter Pillar IndiaPrivate Ltd.,MelnallathurThiruvallur – 602 004... Respondents in Nos.19213/07 19214/07Prayer in W.P.No.18786/07:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ ofCertiorari calling for the records of the first respondent inI.A.No.110 of 2006 in I.D.No.514 of 2001 and quash its order dated11.05.2007.Prayer in W.P.No.19213/07:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ ofCertiorari calling for the records connected with I.A.No.Nil of 2007in SR No.1255 of 2007 in I.D.No.514 of 2001 on the file of the firstrespondent, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and to quash the orderdated 11.05.2007 made therein and consequently direct the firstrespondent to eschew the evidence of WW.1 and WW.2 filed in the formof proof affidavit.Prayer in W.P.No.19214/07:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ ofCertiorari calling for the records connected with I.A.No.Nil of 2007in SR No.1256 of 2007 in I.D.No.514 of 2001 on the file of the firstrespondent, Principal Labour Court, Chennai and to quash the orderdated 11.05.2007 made therein and consequently direct the firstrespondent to eschew the evidence of WW.1 and WW.2 filed in the formof proof affidavit.In W.P.No.18786/07For petitioner :Mr.V.KarthickFor R.2:Mr.V.P.RajendranIn W.P.Nos.19213 & 19214/07For petitioner :Mr.Sanjay MohanFor R.2:Mr.V.P.Rajendran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDERThough the miscellaneous petitions are listed today, by consentof both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.2.The second respondent in all these writ petitions was a workmanin M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited (Earth Moving Equipments Division),Chennai Car Plant, Thiruvallore (in short M/s.Hindustan MotorsLimited). On 23.07.1999, a charge sheet was issued to the secondrespondent by M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited in respect of alleged mis-conduct committed by him. The second respondent has submitted hisreply on 07.08.1999 denying all the charges. An enquiry was orderedinto the said charges. Before the Enquiry Officer, as many as fivewitnesses were examined on the side of the Management and the secondrespondent was examined on his side. The Enquiry Officer submittedhis report on 29.09.1999 thereby holding that the charges stoodproved. On 01.10.1999, the second respondent was furnished with acopy of the report of the Enquiry Officer and he was called upon toshow cause as to why the proposed punishment should not be awarded tohim. But the second respondent did not give any reply. In time whileduring the year 2000, transfer of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited waseffected and M/s.Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd., took over themanagement. The entire administrative machinery engaged in attendingto the preliminary work who were employed in Hindustan Motor Limitedwere also absorbed by M/s.Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. There is somecontroversy as to whether the second respondent’s name was includedin the list of employees who were absorbed by M/s.Caterpillar IndiaPvt. Ltd., to continue in employment or not. However, the saidquestion need not be resolved in this writ petition. Subsequently,M/s.Hindustan Motor Limited dismissed the second respondent fromservice. Thereafter, the second respondent has raised an IndustrialDispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before thefirst respondent Labour Court and the same is now pending.3.In the said Industrial Dispute, the second respondent hasraised certain questions touching the validity of the report of theEnquiry Officer besides raising other questions relating to thecharges.4.The second respondent has examined himself as W.W.1 and hasexamined one Issac Daniel as W.W.2 before the Labour Court. W.W.1and W.W.2 have filed proof affidavits as evidence in chief instead oforal evidence. In the said affidavit of W.W.2, in paragraph Nos.10 to14, according to the petitioners, there are certain allegations madein respect of the merits of the charges. Therefore, seeking to eschewparagraph Nos.10 to 14 of the proof affidavit of W.W.2, M/s.CatterPillar India Private Ltd., filed I.A.No.110 of 2006 before the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent Labour Court. The second respondent workman has submittedhis counter. Considering the same, the Labour Court by order dated11.05.2007, has dismissed the said Interlocutory Application.Challenging the same, M/s.Catter Pillar India Private Ltd., has filedW.P.No.18786 of 2007.5.M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited filed I.A.No.Nil of 2007 in SRNo.1256 of 2007 before the Labour Court requesting the Court todecide only the issue relating to the validity of domestic enquiryconducted by the Management as the only issue at that stage, withoutconsidering in any manner the oral evidence let in by W.W.1 andW.W.2, on the merits of the dispute. The Labour Court by order dated11.05.2007 has rejected the said application on the ground that asimilar application filed by M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited inI.A.No.602 of 2004 had already been dismissed. Challenging the same,M/s.Hindustan Motors Ltd., has filed W.P.No.19214 of 2007.6.Similarly, M/s.Hindustan Motors Ltd., filed anotherInterlocutory Application in I.A.No.Nil of 2007 in SR No.1255 of 2007before the Labour Court seeking to eschew the evidence of W.W.1 andW.W.2 in respect of the merits of the charges and to confine theevidence let in by the said witnesses only to the issue relating tothe validity of the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court by order dated11.05.2007, neither dismissed the application nor allowed it,instead, the Labour Court ordered the said application to be treatedas counter in I.A.No.110 of 2006. Challenging the said order dated11.05.2007, the Management of Hindustan Motors Limited has comeforward with W.P.No.19213 of 2007.7.Heard Mr.Sanjay Mohan, the learned counsel appearing forM/s.Hindustan Motors Limited, Mr.V.Karthick, the learned counselappearing for M/s.Catter Pillar India Private Ltd., andMr.V.P.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the secondrespondentworkman.8.Admittedly, the second respondent workman was dismissed fromservice only after holding a domestic enquiry. In the industrialdispute, if the workman raises any ground questioning that theenquiry was not done in a fair and proper manner then, in respect ofthe same he can adduce evidence. If he has got no grievance inrespect of the manner of enquiry held, then he cannot be allowed tolet in any evidence afresh. It is the settled law that when such aquestion regarding the validity of the enquiry is raised by theworkman, it is incumbent upon the Labour Court to decide the saidquestion first and to give a finding thereon. If the Labour Courtcomes to the conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted in a fairand proper manner, after recording the said finding, the Labour Courtis required to afford an opportunity to the Management to let in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence if any, in support of the charges if so advised. If any suchevidence is given after affording opportunity to the workman also tolet in evidence, the Labour Court is required to decide as to whetherthe dismissal is proper or not, based on such fresh evidence and noton the basis of the original records of the Enquiry Officer.9.The the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ritz Theatre (Pvt.) Ltd.,Delhi v. Its Workmen (AIR 1963 SC 295) has laid down that where themanagement relied upon the domestic enquiry in defending its action,it would be the duty of the Tribunal to first consider the validityof the domestic enquiry and only when it comes to the conclusion thatthe enquiry was improper or invalid, it would itself go into themerits of the case and call upon the parties to lead evidence. Evenafter the introduction of Section 11 A of the Industrial DisputesAct, the legal position as to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court orTribunal to itself decide the merits of charges on fresh evidenceremained unaltered. The said judgment of the the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Ritz Theatre (Pvt.) Ltd., Delhi v. Its Workmen (cited supra)was followed in many other judgments of the the Hon'ble SupremeCourt. 10.In Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (AIR 1999SC 698), the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on Ritz Theatre (Pvt.)Ltd., Delhi v. Its Workmen and in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.Ltd., v. Ludh Budh Singh (1972 (1) SCC 595), has clarified thedistinction between "the material on record" within the meaning ofSection 11A of the Act and "fresh evidence". In paragraph Nos.26 and27 of the said judgment, the the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held asfollows:-"The record pertaining to the domesticenquiry would not constitute "fresh evidence" asthose proceedings have already been found by theLabour Court to be defective. Such record wouldalso not constitute "material on record", ascontended by the counsel for the respondent,within the meaning of Section 11-A at the enquiryproceedings, on being found to be bad , have tobe ignored altogether. The proceedings of thedomestic enquiry could be, and, were, in fact,relied upon by the Management for the limitedpurpose of showing at the preliminary stage thatthe action taken against the appellant was justand proper and that full opportunity of hearingwas given to her in consonance with theprinciples of natural justice. This contentionhas not been accepted by the Labour Court and theenquiry has been held to be bad. In view of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nature of objections raised by the appellant, therecord of enquiry held by the Management ceasedto be "material on record" within the meaning ofSection 11-A of the Act and the only course opento the Management was to justify its action byleading fresh evidence as required by the LabourCourt. If such evidence evidence has not be led,the Management has to suffer the consequences.27.Having regard to the findings recorded bythe Labour Court that the domestic enquiry wasnot properly and fairly held and an effectiveopportunity of hearing was not given to beappellant, the Labour Court was right in callingupon the Management to lead fresh evidence. Sincethe Management did not lead any fresh evidence onmerits, the appellant was well within her rightto say that she, too, would not lead any freshevidence. But, for that reason, her claim couldnot be rejected. Rather, she was entitled to begranted relief then and there. However, havingregard to the entire circumstances of the caseparticularly when the Labour Court had itselffound that the enquiry was not fairly andproperly held, we allow the appeal, set aside thejudgment of the High Court and that of the LabourCourt and remand the case back to the LabourCourt to decide the case afresh after requiringthe parties to lead fresh evidence on merits inpursuance of its order dated 21.11.1995." 11.In the instant case, in the industrial dispute, the workmanhas questioned the fairness of the enquiry also. So as held by thethe Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is incumbent on the part of the LabourCourt to decide first the issue as to whether the enquiry has beenheld properly and fairly. To decide the said question, the wrokmancan lead evidence only in respect of the said question alone and hecannot be allowed to lead evidence in respect of the charges at thisstage. 12.But, in the proof affidavit filed by W.W.2 there are certainportions which go to deal with the charges. The Labour Court oughtnot to have allowed the workman to lead evidence in respect of thesame. Because such evidence attacking the charges have been letin inthe chief examination of W.W.1 and W.W.2, in the proof affidavitsfiled as evidence, the petitioners in these writ petitions had tofile necessary applications before the Labour Court to decide thequestion regarding the validity of the enquiry and while doing so to eschew that part of the evidence which deals with the charges. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13.Admittedly, M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited, filed I.A.No.602 of2004 under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, requesting theLabour Court to decide the preliminary issue as to whether thedomestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. But theLabour Court by order dated 30.12.2004, dismissed the saidapplication thereby refusing to decide the said issue as apreliminary issue and instead, the Labour Court has held that boththe Management and the workman can let in evidence in respect of theenquiry as well as in respect of the charges. But the Management ofM/s.Hindustan Motors Limited did not challenge the same before anyhigher forum and thus, the said order has become final.14.Once again the Management of M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited hasfiled another Interlocutory Application under Section 11 of the Actin SR No.1256 of 2007 requesting the Labour Court to decide the saidissue as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court has again dismissedthe said application holding that the said application is notmaintainable in view of the earlier order of dismissal in I.A.No.602of 2004. Against the said order of dismissal, M/s.Hindustan MotorsLimited has filed W.P.No.19214 of 2007. 15.In the counter filed by the second respondent/workman, it hasbeen stated that the present petition was filed by the Managementonly with a view to drag on the proceedings unnecessarily. It isfurther stated that the Labour Court was right in rejecting the saidinterlocutory application in view of the earlier order passed inI.A.No.602 of 2004. 16.From out of these rival submissions, the legal question whicharises for consideration,is as to whether the principle of resjudicata will operate against M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited tomaintain the present petition in SR No.1256 of 2007.17.The learned counsel appearing for M/s.Hindustan MotorsLimited would submit that on a wrong decision, in respect ofjurisdiction, a Court cannot be allowed to assume jurisdiction and todecide an issue and so, the principle of res judicata is notapplicable. In this regard, the learned counsel relied on a judgmentof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswawal andothers v. Dossibai N.B Jeejeebhoy (1970(1) SCC 613) wherein, inparagraph Nos.12 and 13, it has been held as follows:-"12.A question relating to the jurisdictionof a Court cannot be deemed to have been finallydetermined by an erroneous decision of the Court.If by an erroneous interpretation of the statutethe Court holds that it has no jurisdiction, thequestion would not, in our judgment, operate as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ res judicata. Similarly by an erroneous decisionif the Court assumes jurisdiction which it doesnot possess under the statute, the decisioncannot operate as res judicata between the sameparties, whether the cause of action in thesubsequent litigation is the same or otherwise.13......Where, however, the question is onepurely of law and it relates to the jurisdictionof the Court or a decision of the Courtsanctioning something which is illegal, by resortto the rule of res judicata a party affected bythe decision will not be precluded fromchallenging the validity of that order under therule of res judicata, for a rule of procedurecannot supersede the law of the land."18.Similarly, in Smt.Isabella Johnson v. M.A.Susai (AIR 1991 SC993) while dealing with an identical question relating to theprinciple of res judicata, the the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held asfollows:-"The same view has been reiterated by a Benchcomprising three learned Judges of this Curt inSushil Kumar Metha v. Gobind Ram Bohra (dead)through his Lrs, MANU/SC/0593/1989. We find thatthe decision of three learned Judges of this Courtin Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Ors. v.Dossibai N.S.Jeejeebhoy, has not been noticed atall by the Division Bench comprising two learnedJudges of this Court which delivered the judgmentin Avtar Singh and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Anr.And hence, to the extent, that the judgment inAvtar Singh’s case takes the view that theprinciple of res judicata is application to anerroneous decision on jurisdiction, it cannot beregarded as good law. In our opinion a court whichhas no jurisdiction in law cannot be conferredwith the jurisdiction by applying principles ofres judicata. It is well settled that there can beno estoppel on a pure question of law and in thiscase the question of jurisdiction is a purequestion of law."19.From the law laid down by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court inthe above judgments, it is crystal clear that when the question ofjurisdiction is involved, the same being a pure question of law, whenraised in a subsequent proceeding it cannot be opposed on the ground https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of res judicata as the said principle is not at all applicable. As Ihave already held in the earlier paragraphs, as laid down by the theHon'ble Supreme Court, when the fairness of enquiry is challenged bythe workman in an industrial dispute, it is absolutely mandatory onthe part of the Labour Court to decide the said question first andfor any reason if the Labour Court gives a finding that the enquirywas not fair and proper then only the Court assumes jurisdiction todirect the Management as well as the workman to let in evidence.Without deciding the said issue first, the Labour Court cannot nothave the jurisdiction to decide the issue in respect of the charges. 20.In the instant case, the Labour Court has erroneouslydismissed I.A.No.602 of 2004 holding that it has got jurisdiction toallow the workman to let in evidence in respect of the charges evenbefore deciding the question relating to the enquiry. Therefore, inmy considered opinion, the Labour Court was not right in dismissingSR.No.1256 of 2007 applying the principle of res judicata. The LabourCourt ought to have entertained the said application and ought tohave allowed the same. Thus, the order of the Labour Court made in SRNo.1256 of 2007 is apparently erroneous in the eye of law. Therefore,the said order is liable to be quashed and thus W.P.No.19214 of 2007deserves to be allowed.21.M/s.Hindustan Motors Limited filed an Interlocutoryapplication in SR No.1255 of 2007 before the Labour Court requestingthe Court to eschew the evidence of W.W.1 and W.W.2 in respect of themerits of the charges and to confine the same only in respect of thevalidity of the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court by order dated11.05.2007 has neither dismissed nor allowed the same instead, hasordered the same to be treated as counter in I.A.No.110 of 2006 filedby M/s.Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Wherein M/s.Caterpillar India Pvt.Ltd., has requested the Court to eschew the evidence of W.W.2 inrespect of paragraph Nos.10 to 14 of his proof affidavit. The saidorder passed by the Labour Court in my considered opinion cannot withstand the judicial scrutiny at all since, it is incumbent on the partof the Court to decide the said petition on its own merits and it isnot at all permissible for the Court to order the said petition to betreated as counter to some other Interlocutory application. Thus, theimpugned order made in SR No.1255 of 2007 dated 11.05.2007 deservesto be set aside.22.At the same time, it is to be seen whether the Labour Courtshould be directed to eschew any part of the evidence of W.W.1 andW.W.2 wherein, they have stated something about the merits of thecharges. As stated above, in I.A.No.110 of 2006, M/s.CaterpillarIndia Pvt. Ltd., requested the Court to eschew the evidence of W.W.2in respect of the evidence relating to the charges. The Labour Courtby order dated 11.05.2007, has dismissed the same holding that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order passed in I.A.No.602 of 2006 operates as res judicata againstM/s.Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd., also since M/s.Caterpillar IndiaPvt. Ltd., was also a party to I.A.No.602 of 2004. The Labour Courthas further held that having taken four adjournments for crossexamination of the witnesses, the said company had come forward withthe said Interlocutory application only with a view to drag on theproceedings. In my considered opinion, the said conclusion arrived atby the Labour Court is not at all legal and the same is perverse.23.As I have concluded in the earlier paragraphs of this order,as laid down by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the workman can leadevidence only in respect of the enquiry and not in respect of thecharges at that stage. But it is seen from the proof affidavit filedthat there are certain portions where the workman has let in evidencein respect of the charges which in my considered opinion, should nothave been allowed by the Labour Court. Now the fact remains that theLabour Court has allowed the same to go on record. When a similaroccasion arose for consideration in C.M.C Hospital v. PresidingOfficer (2003(2) L.L.N.629), in paragraph Nos.15,16,17 and 18, alearned single Judge of this Court has held as follows:- "15.Therefore, it follows that with respectto preliminary issue, the parties have to confinethe evidence as to where there has been a fair andjust domestic enquiry alone and they shall not bepermitted to let in evidence with respect to themerits of the charge or misconduct for whichproceedings cam to be initiated and punishment ofdismissal or removal came to be imposed.16.It is made clear that it is not for theLabour Court to record evidence or subject theworkman either for cross-examination or thatmatter allow chief examination with respect to themerits of the charges or findings of the domesticenquiry officer at this stage. Hence, it cannot besaid that the interlocutory application filed bythe management is without merits.17.However, instead of quashing theparticular paragraphs pointed out by the writpetitioner management in the affidavit ofevidence, this Court directs the Labour Court notto refer to the said paragraphs as they relate tomerits of the charges, but decide the preliminaryissue as to whether the enquiry was conductedfairly and property without referring to the saidparagraphs. This course will be fair and just less https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it could be said that hyper-technicalities hasbeen allowed to prevail.18.In the circumstances, the first respondentLabour Court is directed not to take intoconsideration of the proof affidavit filed by thesecond respondent workman with respect to themerits of the case, but confine its considerationin respect of the preliminary issue at this stage.The above direction will serve the purpose. Thiswrit petition is ordered in the above terms. Theparties shall bear their respective costs."24.Similarly, in the case on hand also, I am of the view that itwould be appropriate for this Court to issue a direction to theLabour Court not to take into consideration of the proof affidavitsfiled by W.W.1 and W.W.2 with respect to the merits of the charges,but to confine his consideration in respect of the preliminary issueat that stage. 25.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondentworkman would however rely on the judgment in D.P.Maheshwari v. DelhiAdministration (1984 (Volume 1) Reports LLJ 1) wherein the Hon’bleSupreme Court has deprecated the practice of approaching the HighCourt as and when there is an order passed in an InterlocutoryApplication and in the said judgment, it has been held as follows:- "There was a time when it was thoughtprudent and wise policy to decide preliminaryissues first. But the time appears to have arrivedfor a reversal of that policy. It is better thatTribunals, particularly those entrusted with thetask of adjudicating labour disputes where delaymay lead to misery and jeopardize industrialpeace, should decide all issues in dispute at thesame time without trying some of them aspreliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in theexercise of their jurisdiction under Art.226 ofthe Constitution stop proceedings before aTribunal so that a preliminary issue may bedecided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of theHigh Court under Art.226 of the Constitution northe jurisdiction of the Supreme Court underArt.136 may be allowed to be exploited by thosewho can well afford to wait to the detriment of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ those who can ill afford to wait by dragging thelatter from Court to Court for adjudicating ofperipheral issues, avoiding decision on issuesmore vital to them. Articles 226 and 136 are notmeant to be used to break the resistance ofworkmen in this fashion. Tribunals and Courts whoare requested to decide preliminary questionsmust, therefore, ask themselves whether suchthreshold part adjudication is really necessaryand whether it will not lead to other woefulconsequences. After all Tribunals like IndustrialTribunals are constituted to decide expeditiouslyspecial kinds of disputes and their jurisdictionto so decide is not to be stiffed by all manner ofpreliminary objections and journeying up anddown."26.Relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel for thesecond respondent workman would s ubmit that since the orders underchallenge are made on a preliminary issue, all the writ petitions areliable to be dismissed. But, I am not persuaded by the said argumentadvanced by the learned counsel, for the simple reason that, in thesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had no occasion to deal witha preliminary issue relating to jurisdiction. If any other issueother than an issue relating to the jurisdiction is decided as apreliminary issue, then the said decision need not be interfered withby this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Butonce such a preliminary question relating to the jurisdiction israised and the Court gives a finding that it has jurisdiction thenthe same should be tested under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia as otherwise the entire consequential proceedings pursuant tothe wrong assumption of jurisdiction shall become waste. Therefore,in my considered opinion, in the case on hand, since the jurisdictionof the Labour Court to allow the workman to lead evidence relating tothe charges has been answered positively, it would be well within thescope of judicial review of this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to decide the said question touching thejurisdiction. Thus, these writ petitions are maintainable.26.For all the factual and legal findings arrived at above, allthese writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders made inI.A.No.110 of 2006 and I.A.No.nil of 2007 in SR No.1255 of 2007 andI.A.No.nil of 2007 in SR No.1256 of 2007 dated 11.05.2007 are setaside and the Labour Court is directed not to take into consideration https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the evidence of W.W.1 and W.W.2 with respect to the merits of thecharges but confine its consideration in respect of the preliminaryissue alone at this stage and to proceed further in accordance withlaw. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.jbmTo1. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai.+ 3 CC To Mr.V.P.Rajendran, Advocate SR NO.34890,34891,34892+ 1 CC To Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocate SR NO.34232+ 2 CC To Mr.S.Rama Subramaniam & Associates, Advocate SR NO.34815W.P.Nos.18786, 19213 and 19214/07GV {CO}TP/10.7.08.