If Employer Doesn’t Adduce Evidence, Labour Court Need Not Suo Motu Call Upon Employer To Adduce Evidence To Substantiate Charges: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court held that if the employer chooses to not adduce evidence, the Industrial Court or the Labour Court need not suo motu call upon the employer to adduce evidence to substantiate the charges.
The Nagpur Bench held thus in a writ petition against the judgment of the Industrial Court in a case in which the Revisional Court remanded back the complaint to the Labour Court for fresh trial from the stage of proportionality of punishment.
A Single Bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare observed, “As could be seen, if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held the entire case would be open before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court and the employer will have to justify the order of dismissal or discharge by leading evidence, if he chooses to do so. If the preliminary issue is answered in favour of the management, then no additional evidence be cited by the management. Thus, it is for the employer to take a call, that too, depending upon the decision on the preliminary issue. If the employer chooses to not adduce evidence, the Industrial Court or the Labour Court need not suo motu call upon the employer to adduce evidence to substantiate the charges.”
The Bench added that, it will not be proper to contend that by introducing Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (IDA), there is absolutely no restriction to adduce additional evidence before the Labour Court or the Industrial Court.
Advocate S.W. Sambre appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate R.B. Puranik appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Brief Facts -
The Labour Court in a complaint filed by the petitioner, while allowing the same partly, declared that by dismissing his services, the respondent employer engaged in unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The dismissal order was set aside and the respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 75% back wages. The Labour Court declared that the enquiry conducted by the employer against the petitioner was fair and proper and findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. The Labour Court noted that the accusation was that the petitioner and other three employees instigated other employees to gather before the assembly line for 181 minutes thereby causing loss to the employer of about Rs. 2.60 Crores.
The allegations/charges were made in connection with an accident that occurred in 2018 in the factory premises where one employee sustained serious injuries. The employer had imposed punishment of four days suspension upon the other three employees, however, when came to the petitioner, it imposed a punishment of dismissal of service. The Industrial Court was of the view that the Labour Court ought to have examined the issue of proportionality of punishment on the touch stone of the reaction of the petitioner to the incident, as to whether it was bona fide or unnecessary dominance. Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “The Supreme Court then, in paragraph No.25, referred to the case of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company of India (P) Ltd. (supra), wherein it is found that even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held was defective, the Tribunal has to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce evidence. The Supreme Court further observed that the employer, who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask for it at the appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse, but if it is not, the Tribunal ought not to afford such opportunity.”
The Court reiterated that there is no duty cast on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court while adjudication upon a penal termination of service of a workman either under Section 10 or under Section 33 to call upon the employer to adduce additional evidence to substantiate the charge of misconduct by giving some specific opportunity after decision on the preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry was at all held, or if held, was defective, in favour of the workman.
“… permission to adduce additional evidence should be granted only upon seeking opportunity to lead evidence. … The learned Counsel for Respondent has also raised a ground that provisions of Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 are not available to the Labour Court while hearing the complaint. In support, he has relied upon Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohan Sugan Naik & Ors. V/s National Textile Corporation (South Maharashtra) Ltd. & Ors. 7 , wherein the High Court accepted the submissions of the employer that provisions of Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 are not available to the Labour Court while hearing the complaint but principle analogous to provisions of Section 11-A are always available”, it further said.
The Court remarked that the Labour Court was right in holding that, once it is found that the employer has engaged in unfair labour practice, Section 30 of the Act of 1971 read with Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 would empower the Labour Court to set aside the order of dismissal and to direct reinstatement or to award lesser punishment.
“In these circumstances, the Industrial Court ought to have examined the legality and correctness of the finding on the basis of the materials on record, instead it has relegated matter back to the Labour Court for fresh trial from the stage of proportionality of punishment and to allow either party to lead additional (oral and documentary) evidence. This finding is contrary to the settled principles of law, as discussed hereinabove, and therefore, is unsustainable. Resultantly, the impugned Judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur is liable to be quashed and set aside”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded back the case to the Industrial Court.
Cause Title- Aiyaz Mohammad v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-NAG:11862)
