* THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY +WRIT PETITION No.12426 of 2007 %Dated 26.08.2008 # Mr. G.P. Babu, S/o. Danial, R/o. Cheruvu Jammalapalem, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. …Petitioner. and $ The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur District and another. …Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner : Sri T.Lakshmi Narayana ^ Counsel for Respondent No.2 : C.Prakash Reddy < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12426 of 2007 Between: Mr. G.P. Babu, S/o. Danial, R/o. Cheruvu Jammalapalem, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur District. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bapatla Depot, Bapatla, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ or order directionmore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, call for the records and quash the preliminary issue of the 1st respondent passed I.D.No. 76 of 2005 dt. 1-3-2007 being illegal, arbitrary, perverse and failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it and pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12426 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in Bapatla Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was removed from service by the Depot Manager, Bapatla, 2nd respondent herein (for short ‘the respondent’), on disciplinary grounds. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Guntur, by ﬁling I.D.No.276 of 2006 under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’). At his instance, the Labour Court has taken up the question of validity of the domestic enquiry, as preliminary issue. The petitioner pleaded that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a defective manner and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent contested the matter. Through its order, dated 01.03.2007, the Labour Court answered the said issue in aﬃrmative and held that the domestic enquiry is valid and binding on both the parties. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner approached the Labour Court under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent, removing him from service. It is quite strange that the petitioner, who invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, had insisted that the question, as to the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry, be decided. Normally, it is the contesting respondents in the proceedings before a Court or Forum, that would raise several issues opposing the claim of the persons, who instituted the proceedings. Preliminary issue is the one; the answer to which in a particular form, would terminate the proceedings, without the necessity to deal with the other aspects of the matter. Invariably, such issues are raised by the defending parties. It is uncommon that a party, who invokes the jurisdiction of a Forum or Court, would insist on the answer to a preliminary issue. Therefore, it was impermissible for the petitioner, to insist on the adjudication of a preliminary issue. Be that as it may, let it be examined as to whether the issue sought for adjudication is preliminary in nature. In the course of adjudicating the matter before it, under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, the Labour Court would not only examine the validity of the domestic enquiry, but also the merits of the matter. Even where, the domestic enquiry is found to be valid, the proceedings do not get terminated. The Labour Court has to examine the matter on merits. Further, Section 11-A of the Act confers powers on the Labour Court to grant relief not only in cases, where the domestic enquiry is held to be defective, or where the charges are held not proved on merits, but also in cases, where a ﬁnding is recorded on merits to the eﬀect that the charges are proved. The issue as to whether the validity of the domestic enquiry could not have been treated as preliminary. The reason is that, the necessity to adjudicate the matter on merits, or other aspects, would have remained, irrespective of the manner in which, the said issue was answered. Had the domestic enquiry been held not valid, it would have been for the Labour Court, to examine the matter, with reference to the material, that formed part of the record of the enquiry oﬃcer, or to set aside the order of dismissal, duly indicating the nature of steps to be taken, such as the manner in which the employee be treated, when the matter is remanded for fresh consideration and disposal. Assuming that the domestic enquiry is held valid, the Labour Court would still be under an obligation, to satisfy itself as to the correctness of ﬁndings. Pronouncement upon the validity of the domestic enquiry is mostly guided by the compliance, or otherwise with the procedural requirements. The mere fact that a domestic enquiry was held to be procedurally correct, does not obviate the necessity to examine the correctness of the ﬁndings. Even an extreme situation, where no other view, than the one, expressed in the domestic enquiry is possible, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, under Section 11-A of the Act, would have remained intact. Viewed from any angle, the proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be terminated by answering the question, as to the validity of the domestic enquiry, one way or the other. The Labour Court committed error, both a) in permitting the petitioner to raise a preliminary issue, and b) by treating the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The Labour Court, however, is directed to examine the matter on merits, uninﬂuenced by any of its observations in the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 26.08.2008 Note: L.R.copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12426 of 2007 Date: 26.08.2008 JSU