2019 LLR 301

SHORT NOTE CODE 18

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Hon’ble Mrs. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc. W.P. No. 6180/2015, D/–26-10-2018

 

Hindalco Industries Limited, Renukoot

vs.

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and Another

 

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES – Reinstatement alongwith full back-wages and allowances to respondent No. 2 from date of termination to date of superannuation – Order for – Legality – Workman dismissed after conduct of disciplinary proceedings – Disciplinary enquiry not conducted fairly – Evidence of employer’s witnesses based on hearsay alone – When first charge not made out in evidence produced before Labour Court – Then no reason for Labour Court to have held second charge to be made out – If Labour Court took into consideration all facts and evidence produced by employer and not accepted it – On that basis, findings of Labour Court cannot be held to be perverse – Therefore, no reason to interfere in award impugned – Petition dismissed.

 

For Petitioner: Mr. Ritvik Upadhyay and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate.

For Respondents: Mr. P.S. Tripathi, Mr. Hari Shankar Nath Tripathi, Mr. Pankaj Tripathi and S.C.

IMPORTANT POINTS

• When the enquiry conducted the employer is held not fair and proper by the Labour Court, awarding reinstatement with full back-wages is justified.

 

• When enquiry finding is only on the basis of hearsay evidence, the same is not sustainable.

 

• Normally the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal is the final Court of acts but if a finding of facts perverse or if the same is not based on legal evidence, the High Court exercising its power under Article 226 and 227 can go into the question of fact decided by the Labour Court or the Tribunal but before going into such excise, it is necessary that the Writ Court must record reasons why it intends to reconsider a finding of fact.

 

2019 (160) FLR 241