IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 714 of 2001 (Old No.12984 of 1996). Chauhal Singh …….... Petitioner. Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun and another. ……... Respondents. Sri P.C. Jhingan & Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri R.K. Raizada Advocate holding brief of Sri Ramji Srivastava learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Date: June 24, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition is directed against award dated 29.05.1995 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Dehradun in Adjudication Case No. 2 of 1992 (Annexure no. 11 to the writ petition) by which the termination of the petitioner has been upheld by the Labour Court. 2. On a dispute raised by the workman , the U.P. Government by its notification dated 29.08.1990 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court which was registered there as Adjudication Case No. 2 of 1992. 3. The workman filed written statement. Paragraph nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 29 and 30 of the written statement are quoted as under:- “9. That vide letter dated 09.03.1990, applicant had requested the enquiry officer to 2 kindly summon three witnesses posted at Roorkee depot itself, but to no result which was neither first, fair and proper. 10. That on 23.03.1990 all the defence witnesses were present by enquiry officer was not available, so the statement could not be recorded. 11. That vide application dated 17.05.1990, applicant had requested for postponement of the date of hearing fixed for 18.05.1990. 12. That vide application dated 08.07.1990, applicant had requested the opposite party for the increase of subsistence allowance, as per law, but not increased which comes within the definition of unfair labour practice, a reminder dated16.07.1990 and 23.07.1990 was also given but no result. 29. That subsistence allowance was not increased as per the law, though requested vide letter dated 08.07.1990, 16.07.1990 and 23.07.1990 which comes within the definition of unfair labour practice. 30. That vide application dated 09.03.1990 applicant had requested to summon Sri Qayum Ali and Kalu Ram both drivers and Sri Noor Mohd. Conductor but the request was not agree to by the enquiry officer. All these there employees were working at Roorkee Depot.” 3 4. Thus, the pleadings cast a duty upon the Presiding Officer to frame issue as to whether enquiry was fair, just and proper or not? This issue has not been framed. 5. Rule 18 of Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts Rules of Procedure, 1967 specifically states that after the written statements and rejoinders (if any), of both the parties are filed and after examination of parties (if any), the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court may frame such other issues, if any, as may arise from the pleadings. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts Rules of Procedure, 1967 are applicable only to those Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts, which are specified in the recital of the Rules, as such, it is not applicable to Labour Court Dehradun. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 is not acceptable because at the time when these Rules came into force, Labour Court, Dehradun was not in existence. Therefore, the question of figuring of Labour Court, Dehradun in the recital, does not arise and consequently, the Rules are deemed to be applicable on the Labour Court, Dehradun on its creation. The recital itself provides that Rules have been issued in suppression of the earlier Rules meaning thereby Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts Rules of Procedure, 1957 stands superseded by these Rules. Therefore, Labour Court by not framing relevant issues on the fairness of the inquiry has committed illegality, after insertion of Section 6 (2-A) 4 of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is para materia to section 11 A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. The Apex Court while dealing with Section 11 A in AIR 1973 (Supreme Court) 1227 (The Workman of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. Vs. the Management and others) in para 34 has held that all parties are agreed that even after Section 11 A of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the employer and employee can adduce evidence regarding the legality or validity of the domestic enquiry, if one had been held by an employer. 8. Here in the present case, in the written statement of the petitioner/workman, the legality and validity of the enquiry has been challenged by him as quoted above in this judgment. Therefore, by not framing relevant issues and not allowing the parties to adduce the evidence, the Labour Court has committed error of law. Thus, the impugned award dated 29.05.1995 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to frame necessary issues arising out of the pleadings and evidence available on record and then to make fresh award. However, both the parties shall be at liberty to adduce evidence before the court concerned. 9. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma,J.) 24.06.2008 SKS/P.Singh