1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.429/96 Kalu Ram Suthar Vs. Judge, Labour Court & Anr. Date : 16.7.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANAK LALL MOHTA Mr. Ashok Choudhary for the appellant. None present for the respondents. ----- We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for the respondents. The appellant was an employee of the respondent company at its establishment at Chittorgarh. His services were terminated as a result of disciplinary proceedings against him on 7.9.1991. On an industrial dispute having been raised on his behalf, reference was made to the Labour Court, Bhilwara about the validity of termination. The appellant raised two fold grounds challenging the dismissal order before the Labour Court. Firstly, it was urged that enquiry was conducted ex- parte against the appellant and hence, it was suffering 2 from material irregularity and same ought to have been set aside and could not be sustained as he was wrongly excluded from participating in the enquiry. This contention of the petitioner-appellant had been rejected by the Labour Court finding that he has initially participated in enquiry but later on withdrawn from the enquiry and did not appear notwithstanding he was called to participate in the enquiry. Therefore, the order of the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte was valid. The second contention raised before the Tribunal was that in terms of Supreme Court decision in Mohd. Ramjan's case 1991 SC 471, the enquiry report was not submitted by the disciplinary authority before passing the order on its basis. This contention found favour with the Tribunal and the dismissal was set aside and following the directions contained in the case of Managing Director, E.C.I.L. Haidarabad & Ors. Vs. V. Karunakar & Ors. 1994 SC page 1074 directed the management to furnish the copy of enquiry report to the workman and 3 pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to him and for that purpose, the workman was reinstated in service making it clear that emolument for the period of suspension and from the date of termination of his services upto the date of reinstatement, will be subject to outcome of the disciplinary enquiry. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that direction for holding a denovo enquiry when no enquiry has been conducted or is found to be vitiated, no fresh enquiry can be conducted unless the employer makes a demand. The labour court itself cannot grant this relief. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances the contention cannot be sustained. The Tribunal itself has not held any enquiry to record its finding. If the employer had denied that Labour Court record its own finding, it would have been imperative for the labour court to have held enquiry and reached its finding. Apparently the labour court has not resorted to reach its own finding about alleged misconduct when no 4 such prayer was made. On the other hand, the dismissal order in question was made just around the time Mond. Ramjan's case was decided and position of law was not very clear. In the later decision, in the Managing Director, ECIL, the position about true effect of Mohd. Ramjan's case & scope of direction to be issued was clarified. It was laid down that in such matters the appropriate course to be followed in such matters and that is the one which has been followed by the Labour Court. We are of the opinion that it was not a fit case in which any interference should be made in its extra- ordinary jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge has rightly not done so. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Since no one has appeared to oppose the appeal, there shall be no orders as to costs. [ MANAK LALL MOHTA J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. 5 babulal/