Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9264 of 2007 M/s. V.V.F. Limited ..Petitioner V/s. Shri Dashrath Ramdular Saroj & anr. ..Respondents Mr.P.C.Pavaskar for the petitioner Ms. ketaki Rege, Advocate for respondent no.1 CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 29th January, 2008 : 29th January, 2008 : 29th January, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Pavaskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner company. Ms. Ketaki Rege appears for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 is not a necessary party and hence be deleted forthwith. 2. This petition impugns the interim Award dated 4-8-2007 passed in Reference (IDA)No. 165/2001 and by the said Award part-I, the Labour Court has held that the enquiry conducted against the Respondent was not fair and proper and the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. The reasoning insupport of the above said declaration by the Labour Court finds place only in the last para of the impugned Award i.e. para no.14 and it reads as under:- "14- perused the documents and enquiry papers on 2 record. Perused the oral evidence of the witnesses. Considering the facts on record and above cited ruling it appears that the enquiry officer was acting with bias mind. The enquiry officer has not given sufficient chance to the workman and his defence representative to cross examine the witnesses. It is seen that first of all Mr. Raje was appointed as the enquiry officer in one enquiry. He had given findings that the workman is not guilty,therefore, the company has not appointed him as an enquiry officer. Instead Mr.R.M.Soni is appointed as the enquiry officer. He has conducted several enquiries and in all enquiries he had given findings in favour of the company. It appears that Mr.R.M.Soni was giving findings in favour of the company. The charge against the workman was that he was sleeping while on duty but it appears that this charge is not proved by the company. No independent and satisfactory evidence is brought on record to show that the workman was sleeping on duty. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the enquiry was not fair and findings are perverse. ......" 3. Though Mr. Pavaskar is right in his submission that the reasoning is not happily worded, it is well settled position in law that the petitioner company has 3 every opportunity to prove the charges by conducting a de novo enquiry before the Labour Court by relying upon the very said documents which were produced before the enquiry officer and by examining the same witnesses who were examined in the domestic enquiry. In the de novo enquiry to be conducted the Labour Court will have to record the findings whether the charges levelled against the workman stand proved. At the sametime it needs to be clarified that the charge against the workman was sleeping on duty in the night shift and there cannot be an independent witness for such a charge. The witnesses could be either a co-workman, shift incharge or the security personnel on duty in the shift concerned. In the departmental enquiry there cannot be outsiders and to be treated as independent witnesses who are required to be examined. 4. In the case of D.P.Maheshwari V/s. D.P.Maheshwari V/s. D.P.Maheshwari V/s. Delhi Delhi Delhi Administration Administration Administration & others (1983 4 SCC 293), & others (1983 4 SCC 293), & others (1983 4 SCC 293), a three Judge Bench thought it appropriate that Tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution stop proceedings, before 4 a Tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. 5. Voluminous documents have been placed before this Court insupport of the challenge to the impugned Award part-I. In a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against such preliminary order, it would not be appropriate to stop the adjudication proceedings on a challenge to the Award Part-I. Interest of justice would be better served if the petitioner employer is left to the alternative of proving the charges before the Labour Court by conducting a fresh enquiry based on the very same documents which were placed before the enquiry officer and by examining very same witnesses. Undoubtedly,this should be done expeditiously and more so when the reference is pending for the last about 7 years, in the instant case. 6. Hence,the petition is rejected. It is clarified that the petitioner company has the opportunity of conducting a de novo enquiry before Labour Court as pointed out hereinabove and such an enquiry shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months from the date the Writ is received by the Labour Court. Needless to mention, all the issues including the findings of the enquiry to be 5 conducted before the Labour Court shall be decided simultaneously and the final award shall be passed by the Labour Court before 31st August, 2008. 7. The parties to extend their cooperation to the Labour Court in ensuring that the Award is passed within the stipulated period. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]