M/s.A.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN & COMPANY MR. BALASUBRAMANYAM v. SANTOSH KUAMR MR. PREMKUMAR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Writ Petitions are allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ss. 33(2)(b), 33(ii)(b)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. No order as to costs. In view of the writ petitions having been disposed of on merits, applications pending do not survive for consideration and they stand rejected. Sd! JUDGE PL/SBN
- Para 66. It is the contention of Mr. K.R. Anand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner - management that Addi. Labour Commissioner committed a serious error to arrive at a conclusion that proper opportunity was not given to the workmen since both the workmen had appeared before…
- Para 77. Per contra, Sri T.S. Anantharam, learned counsel appearing for workmen would support the order passed by Addi. Labour Commissioner. He would contend that said authority has rightly held that fair opportunity has not been given to workmen and proceedings of the Enquiry Officer denying…
Judgment
St Brief facts leading to filing of these Writ Petitions are as under: Management filed an Application u/s.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957 (hereInafter referred to as ‘Mt’ for the sake of brevity) before Additional Labour Commissioner and State Conciliation Officer, Bangalore seeking approval of the action of the Disciplinary Authority for action taken against workmen In dismissing them from services vide letters dated 7.2.2009 and 6.2.2009 respectively. The Labour Commissioner and State Conciliation Officer on ‘I, 5 the Issue regarding fairness of Domestic Enquiry conducted held fair opportunity has not been given to the workmen and held as such report of the Enquiry Officer Is vitiated and concluded that enquiry proceedings cannot be held as fair and proper. Thereafter, management was afforded opportunity to lead evidence with regard to misconduct alleged against the workman. Both management and workmen tendered evidence. Said authority after considering the evidence on record arrived at a conclusion that order of termination for which approval was sought for by management legal evidence and it also violates principles of natural Justice and it is with an intention to victimize the workman for their union activities amounting to unfair labour practice and as such rejected applications ified by msnagement as per the impugned orders as per Annexure J and D respectively in both Writ Petitions.
Charge sheet aim suspension order came to be Issued to the respondent workman stating that on 20.5.2008 6 at about 12.05 pm they went to canteen and after having lunch, they went to Canteen Manager Sri Shankar Rao of M/s.Priya Enterprises and started abusing him without any reason and when Sri Shankar Rao advised and asked them not to do so, they physically man handled and assaulted him and abused him in foul language and caused injury to his face, neck and torso and as such, it was contended by management that it amounts to misconduct under the model standing order prescribed under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules. Said charge came to be denied by workmen and thereafter, management conducted a domestic enquiry against these workmen. Separate inquiries were held and in all 20 sittings were held from 8.8.2008 to 13.1.2009. On behalf of management five witnesses were examined in both enquiries. The workmen got themselves examined and in the domestic enquiry conducted against Sri. Premkurnar, three witnesses were examined. After conducting domestic enquiry. Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 22.1.2009 and 14.1.2009 respectively, holding 7 that charges leveled against both workmen are duly proved and they are guilty of misconduct. Thereafter, findings of Enquiry Officer was furnished to workmen and they were called upon to reply as to why the same should not be accepted. After considering the reply, an order of dismissal came to be passed on 7.2.2009 and 6.2.2009 respectively. Thereafter, applications came to be filed by the respective Management before the Addl. Labour Commissioner and State Conciliation Officer, Bangalore u/s.33(2)(b) of ID Act seeking approval of the disciplinary action taken against workmen in dismissing them vide order dated 7.2.2009 and
6.2.2009 respectively. Said authority issued notices workmen and objections filed by them were received on record. Enquiry Officer tendered his evidence and he was cross examined by workmen. The said authority came to a conclusion that there is violation of principles of natural justice since fair opportunity has not been given to the workmen. To arrive at such a conclusion Labour Officer found that workmen (Lokesh) had requested the Enquiry 8 Officer on 10.1.2009 with a request to allow him to lead evidence of two more witnesses and said request was turned down b Enquiry Officer and as such, the authority held that Enquiry conducted was not fair and proper and insofar as enquiry relating to Sri. Prernkumar is concerned it was held that Enquiry Officer had violated the principles of natural justice. After answering the preliminary issue against management in both cases they were called upon to tender fresh evidence to prove the charges leveled against respective workmen. The witnesses who were examined before Enquiry Officer were examined before the Addl. Labour Commissioner and the documents produced in the domestic enquiry was marked once again. Addi. Labour Commissioner, after analyzing and scrutinising the evidence on record, held that action of management in dismissing the workmen is not a bonafide one for the following reasons: (1) The injured/victim Sri Shankar Rao. was not examined. 9 (2) The Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has acquitted these workmen in CC No.23212/2008 which was for the same offence. (3) These two workmen were espousing the grievance of workers through their union activities and to victimize them for their Union activities they have been dismissed and thus amounting to unfair labour practice. On these grounds, Addl. Labour Commissioner held that approval cannot be granted and order of dismissal passed against workmen was held to be bad in law and rejected the applications filed by the management seeking approval.
It is the contention of Mr. K.R. Anand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner - management that Addi. Labour Commissioner committed a serious error to arrive at a conclusion that proper opportunity was not given to the workmen since both the workmen had appeared before the 10 enquiry throughout the proceedings, Cross examined the sought management witnesses. tendered their evidence and had accepted that they would not lead any further evidence and when the enquiry was concluded and posted for arguments workman-Premkumar file written arguments which was refused and another workman Lokesh sought for further examining two witnesses which was rightly refused by Enquiry Officer and as such it cannot be held that there is violation of principles of natural justice or to hold that there is no fair opportunity extended to workmen in enquiry. He would also contend that by itself is not a ground to reject the enquiry report unless prejudice caused if any is pleaded, proved and established by those workmen.
And he would further contend that on account of not placing such material before Addi. Labour Commissioner, he could not have arrived at such a conclusion. He would further contend that Asst. Commissioner while exercising power u/s. 33B(2) of the Act has to examine as to whether prima facie material has been placed by the management either to accept the 11 prayer sought for by management or to reject the same and he cannot reappreciate the evidence of witnesses examined as if it is a proceedings u/s. 11-A of the Act and as such, the orders are erroneous in law. He would further elaborate his submissions by contending that even otherwise, the entire material evidence on record would go to show that incident of assault on Shankar Rao had taken place on 20.5.2008 inside the factory premises and there was no contra evidence placed by the workmen to disprove this fact. He would draw the attention of the court to the evidence of eye-witness Sri Suresh MW-3, the Security Officer who witnessed the incident and contends that same was sufficient for holding that incident has taken place.
He would further contend that no material was placed by workmen to show that there was any intention on the part of the management to victimize the respondent and it is on account of riotous behaviour by these workmen extreme order of penalty namely dismissal from service was passed against these two workmen which cannot be construed as either disproportionate or it was on account 12 of any victimization that labour In support of his submission, he relies upon the too by adopting unfair practice. following judgments: (1) 1982 (1) LU 54 (2)1982(1) LW 40 (3)2012 LLR8 (4) AIR 1976 SC 98 On these grounds, learned counsel seeks for allowing of these Writ Petitions and quashing of impugned orders.
Per contra, Sri T.S. Anantharam, learned counsel appearing for workmen would support the order passed by Addi. Labour Commissioner. He would contend that said authority has rightly held that fair opportunity has not been given to workmen and proceedings of the Enquiry Officer denying opportunity to lead evidence by workmen would clearly go to show that there was lack of fair opportunity extended to the workman (Lokesh). He would draw the attention of the court to the proceedings of the Enquiry 13 Officer dated 13.10.2009 where request was made by the workman (Lokesh) seeking permission to examine two witnesses and same has been denied. And as such, he contends order of Addi. Labour Commissioner in holding that enquiry conducted was not fair and proper and there is violation of natural justice is based on sound appreciation of material evidence available on record and as such he seeks for confirming the said order. He would also draw the attention of Court relating to Premkumar where opportunity sought on 13.1.2009 to file written arguments have been denied and as such he contends Labour Officer has rightly held there is violation of natural justice. to enquiry proceedings
In so far as merits of the case are concerned, he would contend that while considering an application for permission by the management u/s.33(2)(b) of the Act, authority is empowered and entitled to examine the evidence available on record so as to arrive at a conclusion as to 14 whether there has been victimization and unfair labour practice adopted by management. Prima fade, evidence tendered by the management in the instant case according to Mr. Anantha Rao is absolutely lacking and as such he contends that AddL Labour Commissioner was justified in holding after analyzing the evidence that management has adopted unfair labour practice. He would contend that scope of exercising power u/s.33(2)(b) of the Act is akin to Sec. 1 1-A of the Act and authority could not only examine the evidence tendered by parties but also examine the proportionality of the punishment imposed by management Management. the prayer made is whether disproportionate so as to arrive at a conclusion and grant or reject in the Applications by the He would also elaborate his submission contending that AddL Labour Commissioner has taken entire evidence tendered by parties into consideration as also the fact of non examination of Sri Shankar Rao who was allegedly injured in the incident and who has not been examined before the Addl.
Labour domestic enquiry before 15 Commissioner to hold that charges leveled against workmen for alleged misconduct is not proved. He would also bring to the notice of this Court order passed by VI Addl. ACMM dated 7.8.2010 In CC No.23212/2008 whereunder these workmen have been acquitted which would also corroborate the fact that there is no Incident that has taken place on 20.5.2008 as alleged and there was no participation of these workmen. He would also draw the attention of the court to the admission made by the witnesses that these workmen were Involved In Trade Union activities and as such, he would contend that it is a clear case where to victimise the workmen since they were carrying on active Trade Union activities and to scuffle the same, management has adopted this unfair labour practice. He would also draw the attention of the court to the complaint filed by Sri Shankar Rao and the Contractor of Sri Bharanl Enterprises to contend that names of persons who were involved In the Incident is not mentioned in the complaint and that itself would clearly go to show that these workmen were not invoked in the alleged Incident at all and 16 as such. he would support the order passed by the Addi. Labour Commissioner.
In support of his submission, he relies upon the following judgments: (1)(19783SCC 1 (2)2005(2) LU 38 (3)2010 (1) LU 218 KAR (4)1998(1) LU 695 (5) 1996(3) LU (Supplement) 1163 Rajasthan.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, I am of the considered view that following points would arise for my consideration. (1) Whether Addi. Labour Commissioner was correct in arriving at conclusion that Domestic Enquiry conducted against these two workmen was not fair and proper and there was lack of opportunity to them? 17 (2) Whether Addi. Labour Commissioner was justified in rejecting the applications filed by management u / s.33(2) (b) Industrial by order dated Disputes Act, Annexure-J in both petitions?
12.1.2011 (3) What Order.? 1 1. Before entering into discussion on contentions raised and arriving at conclusions on the points formulated herein above, I am of the considered view that the gist of the case of management and workmen requires to be stated for better appreciation of facts and points of law canvassed. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
Articles of charge was issued to workman during May 2008 alleging that on 20.05.2008 at 12.05 noon that after having lunch they started abusing Canteen Manager. Sri. Shankar Rao who had been employed by contractor M/s.Bharani Enterprises without any reason and physically manhandled, assaulted him and abused him in foul language 18 and thereafter dragged him physically and pushed him to the store room and locked him and thereby ifiegally confIned him In the store room. On reply being received from the workmen denying the charge, an enquiry was held and as noted herein supra in all then was 20 sIttings held by Enquiry Officer commencing from 08.08.2008 to 13.01.2009. On behalf of management five witnesses have been examined In both the enquiries. On behalf of workmen three witnesses including workman have been examined. On behalf of workmen In the enquiry relating to Srl. Prem Kumar five witnesses were examined and In so far as enquiry relating to Srl.
Lokesh also five witnesses were examined. On behalf of workmen both these witnesses got themselves examined. In the domestic enquiry relating to Sri. Lokesh three more witnesses were examined. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence tendered by parties, Enquiry Officer arrived at a conclusion that charges levelled against the workmen was proved. In view of the charter of demands relating to union was pending before the Labour Commissioner and State 19 Conciliation Officer, management moved two applications (In respect of these twé workmen) under section 33(lfi(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seekIng approval of order of dismissal passed by management after accepting the enquiry report. Additional Labour Commissioner and State Conciliation Officer after issuing notice to workmen and considering their counter statement and also on considering evidence of Enquiry Officer held that there was no fair opportunity extended to both workmen In the domestic enquiry and as such he held that there was violation of principles of natural justice.
Management was given opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charge and all witnesses were examined before said authority. Thereafter, it was held by the said authority that approval sought for is liable to be rejected since management had failed to prove the alleged misconduct and further held action of Management amounts to unfair labour practice and as such It rejected the said applications filed by the Management. 20
At the outset, Sri.KRAnand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner -management has contended that Additional Labour Commissioner committed a jurisdictional error in reappreciating the evidence as though sitting in appeal report of Enquiry Officer which impermissible while considering applications management seeking approval under section 33(ii)(b).
Per contra Sri.T.S.Anantharam has contended that such an exercise is required to be done and prima facie evidence would not mean that authority is not empowered to look into the evidence and consider as to whether there is bonafide intention on the part of the management to punish the workmen and not to victimise the workmen by adopting unfair labour practice.
Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 33 mandates that prior to dismissal or discharge of a workman is to be made by the management incumbent upon the 21 management to apply before the authority where proceedings are pending and seek its approval so that action taken by employer can be scrutinised and to ensure it is not made to victimise a workman. At the time of consideration of grant of approval or rejection of such prayer made by management it examines the findings of Enquiry Officer recorded which would be based on evidence tendered by respective parties. It is for this precise reason. Apex Court in M/s.Bharat Iron Works referred to supra has held that authority while granting permission does not sit as a court of appeal. The exercise which the said authority has to carry out are enumerated in Lalla Rams ease referred to supra which can be surmised as under: (a) Whether domestic enquiry conducted is proper and in accordance with the standing orders and whether there has been compliance of principles of natural justice: 22 (b) Whether order of dismissal is based on legal evidence; (c) Whether the employer/management has arrived at a bonafide conclusion to hold that employee is guilty and did not intend to victimise the workman;
Thus, it would emerge from the dicta laid down in the above two judgments it is prima facie satisfaction which the authority has to arrive at while considering the prayer made in application filed under section 33(ii)(b) and said authority is empowered to look into evidence and if the evidence available on record is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion one way or the other it is empowered to afford opportunity to parties to lead evidence and place such material as they deem fit in support of their respective contentions. In the facts on hand while the authority addressed the issue regarding domestic enquiry being conducted fair or otherwise has looked into the evidence available on record namely evidence tendered by parties in 23 the domestic enquiry to arrive at a conclusion that it is not fair and proper and thereafter has afforded opportunity to the management to lead evidence. Pursuant to which the management has examined the witnesses who have tendered evidence before the enquiry officer. It is this precise exercise which has been carried out by the Additional Labour Commissioner while considering and adjudicating the issue regarding enquiry having been conducted is fair or otherwise and having held the same in the negative has rightly afforded an opportunity to the Management to lead evidence as observed herein above. In that view of the matter, contention of Sri.K.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that Additional Labour Commissioner cannot reappreciate the evidence while considering the prayer for grant of approval or rejecting it cannot be accepted in view of principles enunciated in Lalla Rams case at paragraph 12 extracted herein above. Hence, the said contention is answered accordingly. 24 RE.POINT NO.1: 1 7. Additional Labour Commissioner has held that there was lack of opportunity in the domestic enquiry to the workmen and as such domestic enquiry conducted was in violation of principles of natural justice. To arrive at such conclusion he has referred to enquiry proceedings dated
13.01.2009 (relating to Lokesh) wherein a prayer has been made by workman seeking permission of the Enquiry Officer to examine two witnesses which was refused by Enquiry Officer. Insofar as domestic enquiry relating to Premkumar is concerned it has been held that on account of non granting opportunity to tender written arguments though asked for on
13.1.2009 it amounts to denial of opportunity and as such there is violation of natural justice. Only on this ground, Additional Labour Commissioner arrived at a conclusion that Domestic Enquiry held against Sriyuths Lokesh Premkurnar was not fair and proper. 25
Original records having been secured and scrutiny of the same would go to show that enquiry proceedings commenced on 08.08.2008 and continued for a period of about 5 months ending on 13.01.2009. On all the dates of hearing, workmen have appeared before Enquiry Officer, proceedings recorded have been explained to delinquent workmen by Enquiry Officer himself and for having undertaken such an exercise it is also recorded in the proceedings, all the witnesses examined on behalf of the management have been extensively cross examined. It is also pertinent to note that both workmen were represented by advocate in the domestic enquiry and as such it cannot be construed that there was any lack of assistance or there was lack of opportunity during the proceedings. Proceedings of enquiry (relating to Sri. Prem Kumar) dated 09.01.2009 would go to show that on the said day workman (Sri. Prem Kumar) was present and his advocate was absent on account of his ill health. However, workman has tendered himself for cross examination on the said date. So also in the enquiry 26 ase of cnquar proceedings i elating to Sn S Lokesh it noticed that on 9. 1.2009 respondent-workman was cross examined at length and on conclusion of cross examination, workmen have stated as under: AS RECORDED BY EO ON 9.1.2009 RE: SRI.PREM KUMAR
CSE stated that he would conclude his side of defence witnesses in the next sitting of the enquiry. In view of the above, I adjourn the enquiry. As per the request of the CSE I have decided to adjourn the enquiry for a day
. RE: LOKESH
CSE stated that positively he would conclude his defence witness in the next sitting of the enquiry. In view of the above I adjourn the enquiry. As per the request of the CSE, I have decided to adjourn the enquiry for a day
. After recording the proceedings as noted herein above both the workmen have affixed their signatures.
On the next date i.e., 10.01.2009 in the enquiry relating to Sri. Prern Kumar, CSE workman who appeared 27 along with his advocate and has submitted before Enquiry Officer that they did not choose to lead any further evidence. In the words of Enquiry Officer and as recorded in the proceedings held on 10.1.2009 it reads as under: We close our side. No further witness to examine and to furnish documents in the enquiry. With the consent of both the parties I have concluded the proceedings. Both parties are given an opportunity to file written arguments if any in the next sitting of the enquiry’. (Emphasis supplied by me)
In the case of Sri. Lokesh, one witness was examined on his behalf namely WW-3 Rangaswamaiah K.H and another witness by name Sri.S.T.Shivakurnar, WW-4 was cross examined by advocate for management. Even in the enquiry relating to Sri. Lokesh he was assisted by an advocate and after conclusion of the evidence, request was made by the employee to examine two more witnesses on another day and said prayer was rejected by Enquiry Officer by recording in proceedings and holding that workman and his advocate had undertaken to conclude their evidence on the said day and 28 without concluding time is sought and same cannot be granted. As such Enquiry Officer held that there was no justification for granting further time. When the matter was listed before Enquiry Officer on the next date i.e.. 13.01.2009 in the case of Sri. Prem Kumar letter came to be submitted whereunder certain allegations were made against Enquiry Officer and it has been specifically recorded on the said day i.e., 13.01.2009 that by consent of parties enquiry has been concluded. In the words of Enquiry Officer proceedings recorded reads as under: (In respect of both enquiries) ‘By consent of both the parties the enquiry is hereby concluded.
Signatures have been obtained from these two workmen to the proceedings recorded on 13.01.2009. A perusal of entire proceedings of Enquiry Officer would clearly go to show that all stages of enquiry, workmen have appeared, contested the matter, examined management witnesses, they have also tendered themselves 4< 29 for evidence, they have also been cross examined and at their request It was adjourned to 10.01.2009 to enable them to file the written arguments and on said date an application/letter Is said to have been submitted by these two workmen and as such the Enquiry Officer rejected the said application by giving reasons as extracted herein supra which cannot be construed or termed as being In violation of principles of natural justice. Full opportunity has been extended and there Is no Infraction of natural justice In the entire enquiry and opportunity having been extended to workmen, Additional Labour Commissioner committed a serious error In arriving at a conclusion that on account of request of workmen made on 13.01.2009 having been turned down It amounts to violation of principles of natural justice which Is erroneous and liable to be set aside. In that view of the matter Point No.1 formulated hereIn above Is to be answered In favour of petitioner and against respondent. 30 RE: POINT NO.2:
In view of finding given on Point No.1 holding that there is no defect in the procedure adopted by Enquiry Officer and having set aside the finding/order of Additional Labour Commissioner it would be necessary to note that when the authority considers the prayer made by Management granting or withholding permission under section 33 it would not re-evaluate the evidence as though sitting in appeal. The three ingredients which are required to be considered by Additional Labour Commissioner are as laid down in Lalla Rams case and within these parameters said authority has to consider the prayer made by management viz., (i) as to whether there is prima facie case for dismissal of application based on legal evidence adduced before Tribunal: (ii) whether employer has come to a bonafide conclusion to impose punishment of dismissal on the workman; and (iii) it is not intended to victirnise the workman by adopting unfair labour practice.
These are the parameters within which Additional 31 Commissioner, authority or the court as the case may be which has to consider such prayer while examining an application filed under section 33(ii)(h). In the instant case the charge against the workmen was that they had assaulted one Sri. Shankar Rao, Canteen Supervisor on 20.05.2008 at 12 noon. Additional Labour Commissioner after holding that there was no fair opportunity given to workmen had permitted the management to lead further evidence and has analysed the said evidence by reconsidering the entire material on record. While carrying out such an exercise said authority arrived at a conclusion that injured or complainant Sri. Shankar Rao has not been examined. The eye witness namely security guard Sri. Suresh was examined by the management and he has stated in unequivocal terms as to the nature of incident that took place on 20.05.2008 and as to how these two workmen assaulted Sri.
Shankar Rao and confined him illegally. Mere non examination of complainant. the injured would by itself not be sufficient ground to discard the evidence of a eye witness. Said security guard has 32 enquiry withstood the cross examination and nothing worth while is extracted from him either to discard his evidence or disbelieve him. In the absence of such material brought out either In domestic before Additional Labour Commissioner, said authority was not justified In Interfering with the findings of Enquiry Officer while examining the prayer made by the Management In Its application filed under section 33 (lI)(b). As to the relevancy of evidence of other witnesses or otherwise may not be of much relevance at the stage of considering the application under section 33(li)(b) for they may or may not throw light on the Incident or otherwise. Said authority has proceeded to reject the prayer under section 33(ll)(b) by taking Into consideration the evidence of three witnesses namely SrLS.L.N.Slmha, Sri.
Babu Kumar Shetty and Srl.A.V.Jltendra Shetty on the ground their evidence Is a hear say evidence. Sri.S.LN.Slmha who Is Deputy Manager-Security and Surveillance at the principal employer-establishment namely M/s.Bosch Limited who arrived at the scene of Incident on 20.05.2008 after receiving 33 tIreport from security guard Sri. Suresh had ensured that said Sri. Shankar Rao who was illegally detained or confined was released from his illegal detention. Hence to the extent of his arriving at the scene of incident or ensuring that injured Shankar Rao is released from illegal confinement could not have been disbelieved in view of this prima facie evidence. In that view of the matter also Additional Labour Commissioner committed a serious error in treating entire evidence of Sri.SLN Sirnha as a hear say evidence. As what amounts to hear say evidence in a domestic enquiry and as to whether such evidence can be relied upon or brushed aside came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of J.D.Jain Vs Management of SBI and another it has been held as under: ‘10.
The next question is, is the evidence in the domestic enquiry really hearsay, as held by the Tribunal? The word ‘hearsay’ is used in various senses. Sometimes it means whatever a person is heard to say: information given by someone else. (See Stephen on Law of Evidence). The Privy Council Subramaniam v/s. Public Prosecutor, 1956 (1) W.L.R. 965 observed: it means whatever a person declares
Evidence of a statement made to a witness who Is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It Is hearsay and Inadmissible when the object of the evidence Is to establish the truth of what Is contained In the statement. It Is not hearsay and Is admissible when It Is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement but the fact that It was made. The fact that It was made quite apart from Its truth, Is frequently relevant In considering the mental state and conduct thereafter of the witness or some other persons In whose presence these statements are made.
In a domestic enqUiry It Is not proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt but It Is preponderance and probabifitles of case which would suffice. Strict rules of evidence does not apply. The fact that said security chief arrived at the scene of Incident to ensure that Injured person Is released form ifiegal confinement cannot be disbelieved. Likewise the receipt of complaint by him from Srl. Shankar Rao and the factum of having received the complaint also cannot be disputed. Even the tenor of cross examination of management witnesses conducted on behalf of workman would dearly establish the fact that there was a dispute with regard to quality of food In the canteen and on account of quality of food being found to 35 be inadequate by these two workmen, incident in question took place. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that Additional Labour Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the application filed by management under section 33(ii)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, by orders dated
12.0L201 1 in both petitions. Said order deserves to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. RE:POINT NO.3:
In view of the orders passed by authority at Annexures-D and J (in both the cases) are hereby set aside a direction is issued to the Additional Labour Commissioner to accord approval sought for by the petitioner-management in its application submitted on 06.02.2009. In the result following order is passed: ORDER
Operative part
Writ Petitions are allowed.
Orders of Additional Labour Commissioner
19.11.2009
12.1.2011 passed IDA-2/CR- 230/2008-09 and in IDA-2/CR-231/2008-09 Annexures 36 D and J respectively In both writ petitions are hereby quashed.
ApplicatIon filed u/s.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by petitioner In both petitions are hereby allowed.
No order as to costs. In view of the writ petitions having been disposed of on merits, applications pending do not survive for consideration and they stand rejected. Sd! JUDGE PL/SBN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petitions are allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — ss. 33(2)(b), 33(ii)(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 19 Nov 2009. The bench was ARAVIND KUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.