✦ High Court of India · 17 Jan 2025

State Resource Centre, Jaipur Through Its Director, C/o v. Ramphool Meena S/o

Case Details High Court of India · 17 Jan 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

17 Jan 2025

Bench

SUDESH BANSAL

Length

2,570 words

Cited in this judgment

(1975) 2 SCC 661

Sitaram Kumawat Son Of Shri Kesar Lal Kumawat, Resident Of 41, Govind Nagar, Opposite Airport, Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11937/2024

3. State Resource Centre And Rajasthan Praudh Shikshan Samiti, 7-A, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur Through Its Chairman. Rajasthan Praudh Shikshan Samiti, 7A, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur Through Director. Rajasthan Praudh Shikshan Samiti, 7A, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur Through Its Secretary. Versus ----Petitioners Ramphool Meena Son Of Shri Kalu Ram Meena, Resident Of Village Jhar, Dhani Kothiwala Ki, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. Through Advocate M Farooq Baig, Labour Law Advisor, Thakur Boraj Ka Raasta, Kishanpol Bazar, Jaipur. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11938/2024

2. Rajasthan Praudh Shikshan Samiti, 7A, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur Through Its Chairman, The Director, State Resource Centre Through, Rajasthan Praudh Shikshan Samiti, (Registration No. 698/2007-08) 7A, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:2407] (2 of 9) [CW-11943/2024] Versus ----Petitioners

2. Shri Man Singh S/o Shri Data Prasad Singh, R/o E-57-58,iiird Phaze, Behind Nursery, Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur. Shri Anil Roongata S/o Shri R C Roongata, Former Director And Ex Officio Secretary, State Resource Centre, Resident Of 4 Ka-6, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.C. Joshi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 17/01/2025

1. In all four writ petitions, facts are substantially similar and issue involved therein is also identical i.e. in respect of declaring the domestic enquiry, conducted by petitioners against respondent-workmen, as impure, unfair and violative to the principles of natural justice, hence, with the consent of counsel for petitioner, all writ petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common order.

2. The facts from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11943 of 2024 in brevity are being taken:-

2.1 Petitioner No.1 is a registered Society, engaged in spreading education amongst adults and in its favour, a Project, namely, "State Resource Centre" was granted by the Central Government and later on, under the instructions of Central Government, a separate Society in the name of "State Resource Centre" having Registration No.698/2007-08 came to be registered, which is petitioner No.2 herein. Petitioners have pleaded that earlier, one Mr. Anil Roongata was the Director of State Resource Centre [2025:RJ-JP:2407] (3 of 9) [CW-11943/2024] Project, but by misusing his position, he formulated a Society, registered in the name of "State Resource Centre", mentioning its headquater at 1/1260, Malvia Nagar, Jaipur, under Registration No.747/2006-07 and in order to swindle the funds, allotted by the Central Government to the petitioner Society for the State Resource Centre Project, absconded with few workmen of petitioner No.2- Society w.e.f. 06.10.2007. On complaint being made by petitioners, registration of Society at the instance of Mr. Anil Roongata viz. respondent No.2 herein, was cancelled. However, the respondent-workman having connivance with respondent No.2 did not rejoin duties at the place of petitioners, hence, respondent-workman was issued a charge-sheet dated

22.12.2007 and in furtherance thereof, he was placed under suspension on 29.12.2007 for willful absenteeism.

2.2 It has further been pleaded by petitioners that enquiry pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 22.12.2007 was conducted by petitioners through Enquiry Officer, who followed the procedures to conduct the enquiry as envisaged under the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') and after conducting a detailed enquiry, respondent- workman was removed from service vide order dated 16.07.2008.

2.3 It has further been pleaded by petitioners that respondent- workman raised a dispute against his removal before the Conciliation Officer whereupon conciliation proceedings were held, but after failure of the conciliation proceedings, a reference has been made to the Labour Court where respondent-workman has submitted his statement of claim, questioning legality and validity [2025:RJ-JP:2407] (4 of 9) [CW-11943/2024] of the domestic enquiry so also the order of his removal from service.

2.4 It has been pleaded by petitioners that in reply to the statement of claim, enquiry was alleged to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1958 and after following the principles of natural justice, the order of removal was alleged to be passed in accordance with law and statement of claim submitted by the respondent-workman has been prayed to be dismissed.

2.5 It appears that as per the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a celebrated and landmark judgment delivered in case of Cooper Engineering Limited Versus P.P. Mundhe: (1975) 2 SCC 661, the Labour Court heard on the preliminary issue as to whether domestic enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice or is impure and unfair? On such preliminary issue, after hearing both the parties and going through the material on record, vide order dated 16.04.2024, the Labour Court has declared the enquiry, conducted by the petitioners as impure and unfair and violative to the principles of natural justice, hence, thereagainst, petitioners have preferred the instant civil writ petitions invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Submission of counsel for the petitioners is that the Labour Court has not examined the documents placed on record by the petitioners to show that a show cause notice, to participate in the enquiry pursuant to the charge-sheet, was issued to the respondent-workman and adherence to the principles of natural [2025:RJ-JP:2407] (5 of 9) [CW-11943/2024] justice was made and further, since it is an undisputed fact that respondent-workman left his job from petitioner-Society, a detailed enquiry in this regard was not required at all. Further, it is clear from the record that the respondent-workman too participated in the enquiry, hence, in such circumstances, declaring the domestic enquiry violative to the principles of natural justice and no opportunity being extended to the respondent- workman to put his defence, is an arbitrary and illegal act on the part of the Labour Court and the order impugned suffers from grave perversity, as such, requires to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Heard counsel for petitioners and perused the material placed on record including the order impugned.

5. The Labour Court has passed a reasoned order and has observed that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry impartially but seems to have acted like an agent of the petitioner- Society. It has been observed that the Enquiry Officer was supposed to conclude the enquiry without indulgence of third party, yet he has reported the progress of enquiry to the Director of Petitioner-Society and asked for his comments/ report. Further, it has been observed that on what kind of evidence, the Enquiry Officer opined his report, is not clear. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that the enquiry was not conducted by the Enquiry Officer independently and in legal and proper way; no proper opportunity was given to the workman to place his defence and such an enquiry may not be held to be in-conformity to the adherence of [2025:RJ-JP:2407] (6 of 9) [CW-11943/2024] the principle of natural justice. Thus, this Court finds that it may not be held that the Labour Court declared the enquiry as improper and unfair, without perusal of the record available before him and in perverse manner.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cooper Engineering Limited (supra), held and observed in para No.22 as under:- "22. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer there will be no difficulty. But when matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court, it will not thereafter be permissible in any proceedings, to raise the issue. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication." (emphasis supplied)

7. The High Court of Delhi in bunch of writ petitions, lead case W.P. (C) No.1642/2021 titled Indraprastha Power Generation Corporation Limited Vs. Someer Chaterjee and other connected writ petitions decided vide order dated September 09, 2022 while placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Cooper Engineering Limited (supra), further relied upon the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta and declined to grant [2025:RJ-JP:2407] (7 of 9) [CW-11943/2024] indulgence against the order of the Labour Court declaring the domestic enquiry as invalid at this preliminary stage, leaving it open to the Management-employer to challenge the decision of Labour Court regarding preliminary issue of validity of enquiry after the final decision of the case, if award is passed against the petitioner. For ready reference, the relevant portion of judgment from Para Nos.12 to 14, is being reproduced hereunder:- " 12. The High Court of Rajasthan in Manager, Poddar Spinning Mills v. The learned Labour Court of Rajasthan S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18 of 1978 decided on 25.01.1980 has inter alia held as under: “10. ……..The paramount object of the Act is industrial peace. Piecemeal decision of issues in such cases is likely to protract or prolong the litigation ad infinitum. It would not be in the interest of justice to allow a party to obtain a decision on a preliminary point, challenge the same before this Court and thereafter before the Supreme Court to the great disadvantage of the workmen. Taking a conspectus of circumstances of the case I am of the view that it is not a fit case in which this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, should interfere with the proceedings pending before the Labour Court at this stage and quash the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Labour Court regarding the preliminary issue after the final decision of the case through on appropriate writ proceeding if so advised.”

13. Similarly, the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Sonodyne Television Co. Employees Union v. Sonodyine Television Co. Employees' Union, F.M.A.T. No. 3689 of 1994 decided on 27.03.1995 took into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering's case (supra) and D.P. Maheshwari's case (supra) as well as the judgment of High Court of Calcutta in Peerless Employees' Union v. Peerless General Insurance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1991) 62 FLR 596 and inter alia held as under: “5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the scope of preliminary issuers quite limited. It is not [2025:RJ-JP:2407] (8 of 9) [CW-11943/2024] necessary to consider the correctness of the decision made in the domestic enquiry on merits at that stage. The tribunal is required to decide the dispute and ultimately give his award. For deciding the preliminary issue the correctness of the ultimate decision made by the tribunal is not required to be considered at this stage. Whatever may be the merits of the case, in our view, this is not an appropriate stage where the writ court should interfere and/or entertain the writ application when all the questions that are decided by the tribunal in the preliminary form or in the final form can be adjudicated after the award is passed and the aggrieved party comes up to the High Court. We are unable to appreciate the arguments made by Mr. Sen that the decisions of the Cooper Engineering's case as well as of the Maheswari's case are only confined to the management and management only and the principles laid down therein have no application whatsoever in case the writ application is filed by the workman. One reason for which the Supreme Court had laid down the law was that such course of action would result delay in disposing of the industrial disputes. Delay may be caused by the management or by the workman and that in order to avoid delay and multiplicity of proceedings the matter should not be entertained at this stage but after the final award is made……”

14. The present issue has also been considered by this Court recently in W.P.(C) 2641/2016 titled as “Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Ira Jha” and in W.P.(C) 815/2020 tilted “Indian Bank v. Shri Praveen Kumar”, whereby this court has reiterated and echoed the well settled proposition of law on the aforesaid issue."

8. No counter judgments to the afore-referred proposition of law has been cited and referred by the counsel for petitioner despite giving opportunity.

9. Having examined the case of petitioners on the touchstone of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Cooper Engineering Limited (supra) as also by the Delhi High Court, Rajasthan High Court and High Court of Calcutta referred hereinabove, no exceptional case is made out in favour of [2025:RJ-JP:2407] (9 of 9) [CW-11943/2024] petitioner to grant indulgence against the impugned orders at this stage in exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

10. However, it is hereby observed that, since the orders impugned are interlocutory in nature and the statement of claim filed by the respondent-workman is yet to be adjudicated on merits. The petitioner-Society so also respondent-workman may pray before the Labour Court to adduce their respective evidences. If such prayer is made then, the petitioner would obviously get opportunity to prove the charges of absenteeism, levelled against the respondent-workman, by producing sufficient evidence and respondent-workman may also lead evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, instead of granting any indulgence at this stage, the interest of justice would be served by giving liberty to the petitioner-Society to assail the impugned order, if ultimately award is passed against the petitioner-Society.

11. As a final result, without interference to the impugned order, at this stage, with the aforesaid liberty, all writ petitions stand disposed of.

12. Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. NITIN /10-13 (SUDESH BANSAL),J