IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2611 of 1999 Between: M/s. Spotnews (P) Limited, Rep. by its Director, Sri Moturi Venkateswara Rao, Andhra Jyothi Buildings, P.B.No.420, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Rep. by its Presiding Officer, Visakhapatnam. 2 C.Navatha, D/o Prasada Rao, LIG-50, H.B. Colony, Visakhapatnam. 3 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary Incharge Labour, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 issue notice call for records and quash and set aside the order made by the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in GR No2507, dt. 26-11-1998 in I.D.No.207 of 1996 dt.30-11-1998 by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.NAGESWAR SREE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 30-11-1998 in I.D.No.207 of 1996 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam/respondent No.1 herein. Heard Sri P.Nageswara Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents. By the impugned order, the respondent No.1 over ruled the objections filed by the petitioner and allowed application filed by respondent No.2 to permit her to adduce evidence in support of her allegations of victimization leading to her dismissal by the petitioner. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Respondent No.2 was an employee of the petitioner. She was faced with charge sheet dated 10-01-1995. The enquiry into the charges was held. On the basis of the enquiry report, show cause notice dated 23-11-1995 was issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, proposing her dismissal from service. Respondent No.2 filed her explanation on 11-12-1995. After considering her explanation, she was dismissed from service by the petitioner by order dated 01-02-1996. Thereafter, respondent No.2 raised industrial dispute under Section 2-A (ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The said dispute was taken on file as I.D.No.207 of 1998. Respondent No.2 filed memo dated 26-11-1998, seeking permission of respondent No.1 to adduce evidence to prove her victimization by the management of the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections to the said memo wherein it is inter alia stated that as domestic enquiry was held and the entire record of enquiry proceedings was filed before respondent No.1, respondent No.2 is not entitled to adduce further evidence. Respondent No.1 by the impugned order allowed the application of respondent No.2. At the hearing, there is no representation for respondent No.2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the objections of the petitioner were rejected purportedly on the judgments of the Supreme Court, this Court and the Patna High Court. Respondent No.1 observed that it can permit adducing of evidence at any stage when the allegations of victimization were made. Section 11-A of the Act was interpreted by the Supreme Court i n The Workmen v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company[1], wherein it is inter alia held that if there has been no enquiry held by the employer or if the enquiry is held to be defective, it is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal justifying the order of discharge or dismissal. In Lalla Ram v. Management of D.C.M. Chemical Works Limited[2], the Supreme Court held that in a case where findings of misconduct alleged against workman were properly arrived at and the domestic enquiry was in no way vitiated, there can be no question of victimization or the management having a bios against the workman. In Bank of Baroda v. G.Sriram and another[3], a Division Bench of this Court held that if the industrial tribunal is satisfied that domestic enquiry leading to the dismissal of the workman from service is validly held, it is not open to the Tribunal to permit the workman to lead any evidence regarding the same issue. The ratio which could be culled out from the above mentioned judgments is that before permitting the parties to let in fresh evidence, the Labour Court or the Tribunal shall first examine whether the domestic enquiry was properly held or not. When once the Labour Court or the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry is properly held, the question of permitting the parties to let in fresh evidence and further examining the validity of the domestic enquiry does not arise. If, on the other hand, it is satisfied that the enquiry was not properly held then only the parties can be permitted to lead fresh evidence to arrive at a finding on the validity of the domestic enquiry. As held by the Supreme Court in Lalla Ram (2 supra), in a case where the charges of misconduct were properly proved, there can be no question of any victimization. In my considered view, the Industrial Tribunal has not properly applied its mind in permitting respondent No.2 to adduce evidence even without going into the question whether the enquiry held by the management of the petitioner was valid or not. Unless it has gone into the said question and passed an order giving reasons to hold that the enquiry was not properly held, it had no jurisdiction to permit respondent No.2 to adduce evidence in support of her allegations of victimization. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly quashed. Respondent No.1 shall first examine whether the domestic enquiry was validly held or not whereupon depending upon its decision, it shall proceed with the matter further in the light of the observations contained herein above. Respondent No.1 shall dispose of the ID within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. -------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th December, 2008 SKM [1] (1973) 1 SCC 813 [2] 1978 LAB.I.C.716 [3] 2002 (6) ALD 671 (DB)