AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1935
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inferior quality cotton into superior quality cotton which were said to have caused a loss of Rs. 5,25,616.20 to the petitioner Cotton Federation. 3. After completion of the domestic enquiry, a second show cause notice dated 23/01/2002 was issued to the respondent proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement coupled with conversion of the period of suspension pending enquiry into punishment. He rushed to the Labour Court Jalna by filing complaint U.L.P. No. 45/2002 and thus challenged the 2nd show cause notice. The complaint was later on transferred to Nanded Labour Court. The complaint was renumbered as U.L.P. No. 1/2002. By judgment and order dated 22/02/2010, the Labour Court allowed the complaint, quashed and set aside the 2nd show cause notice dated 23/01/2002 and virtually prevented the petitioner herein from initiating any disciplinary action against the respondent. 4. The petitioners preferred revision U.L.P. No. 29/2010 before the Industrial Court at Jalna. By the impugned judgment dated 10/08/2012, the revision petition was dismissed. 5. The petitioners take exception to the impugned judgments on the following grounds:- (a) The charge sheet cum show....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d managerial control of the Center as a Center In-charge and was designated as a Grade-I Officer. (n) The fact of the respondent being Center In-charge at Mukhed Cotton Procurement Center has been totally disregarded by both the Lower Courts. (o) The Labour Court could not have interfered with the proposed action of the petitioners since the 2nd show cause notice was intended to give the respondent an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action. (p) The petitioners had proposed the punishment of compulsory retirement to the respondent instead of dismissal from service. (q) Without there being any prayer clause as regards the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Labour Court has by itself ventured into setting aside the findings on the ground that no charge is proved against the respondent and the findings are perverse. (r) The fact that the respondent was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings which was later on converted into punishment along with compulsory retirement from service was construed by the Labour Court to mean two different (double) punishments for the same mis-conduct. (s) Findings of the Enquiry ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, an averment was made in the complaint. (f) Though no prayer was made in the complaint regarding proportionality of the punishment, an averment was made in the complaint. (g) Framing of issues by the Labour Court in the absence of prayers as mentioned above, is justified since the respondent had so averred in the complaint and issues are framed based on the pleadings of the parties. (h) No pecuniary loss has been caused to the petitioner. (i) It is admitted that the respondent did not examine any witnesses on his behalf. (j) The Enquiry Officer has concluded that the alleged act committed by the respondent has not put the petitioners into any loss as is so claimed. (k) The testimony of the Management witnesses contained variations and they were fatal to the case of the petitioners. (l) Alleged mixing of inferior grade cotton with superior grade cotton was required to be examined by an expert body so as to give an expert opinion. (m) It is true that in the earlier domestic enquiry, the respondent was punished with permanent stoppage of one increment. (n) The proposed punishment was shockingly dis-prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 77 to 82 of petition paper book. The Labour Court has gone into the evidence recorded in the enquiry, threadbare. In the light of the above, the Labour Court concluded that the enquiry was vitiated since the findings of the Enquiry Officer were held perverse. 12. While considering a similar situation but with a slight distinction that the order of punishment was passed by the employer in those matters, the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court have laid down the Law. The learned Single Judge in the case of Permanent Magnets Vs. Vinod Vishnu Wani and others, reported at 2002 (93) FLR 32 : 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 413 (Coram: R M S Khandeparkar, J.) concluded that when a right to conduct a de-novo enquiry was reserved in the written statement, the Labour Court could not have delivered its final judgment at the stage of arriving at a conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. 13. In the said case (supra), while holding that the enquiry is vitiated on this count, the Labour Court Jalgaon proceeded to deliver its final judgment and allowed the complainant by directing re- instatement and continuity in service. The Industrial Court, Jalgaon uphel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andal Vikas Nigam Ltd., V/s. G.S. Pant and others, 2001 (I) CLR 12, perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer necessarily presuppose that the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer and reasons assigned in support of such conclusions are either based on no evidence in the enquiry or are based upon mis-reading of the evidence in the enquiry. 19. Perversity in the findings of an Enquiry Officer is to be pointed out on the basis of the evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer. It, therefore, necessarily needs the consideration of the evidence before the Enquiry Officer and analyzing the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Material which was not before the Enquiry Officer can not be brought on record before the Labour Court to brand the findings as being perverse. In fact, normally there is no requirement of leading fresh evidence before the Labour Court on such preliminary issues like fairness of an enquiry and the findings of an Enquiry Officer. In both these situations, what has transpired in the domestic enquiry is to be looked into to find out, firstly, whether principles of natural justice were adhered to in conducting the enquiry and secondly, whether there was any ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew, going by the magnitude of the challenges to the disciplinary proceedings and disciplinary action, it is imperative that the delinquent should put forth substantive prayers in his complaint or statement of claim as regards the fairness of an enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He should specifically set out his prayers seeking directions from the Labour Court for setting aside the domestic enquiry on account of violation of principles of natural justice or findings being perverse or for any other connected reason. Since this aspect of disciplinary proceedings happens to be of paramount importance, pleadings and prayers need to go hand in hand in order to enable the Labour Court to frame specific issues to that extent and deliver its part-I order/Award based on such prayers. A Court normally would not travel beyond the prayers put forth by a litigant. 25. So far as the right to challenge a 2nd show cause notice is concerned, the judgment of our Division Bench in case of Ashok Vishnu Kate and others Vs. M.R. Bhope and Hindustan Lever, 1992 (I) CLR 531 clearly held that such a right was available to an employee even at the penultimate stage and a complaint was main....