Ahmedabad Municipal Transport ... vs Ratilal Bhulsinh Zala
2022 Latest Caselaw 249 Guj

      C/SCA/12094/2020                                     ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12094 of 2020
================================================================
               AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE
                   THROUGH TRANSPORT MANAGER
                               Versus
                       RATILAL BHULSINH ZALA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                  Date : 07/01/2022
                   ORAL ORDER

[1] RULE. Learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent.

[2] In the present writ petition, the petitioner-AMTS Transport Corporation has challenged the order dated 30.01.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.7, Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No.1321 of 2007 declaring the departmental inquiry as defective and also was not conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice.

[3] Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the full-fledged departmental inquiry was held against the respondent and he has been given full opportunity to represent his case and the same would be evident from the inquiry report. He has submitted that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that in the departmental inquiry regarding allegation having possession of four tickets of Rs.37/- not belonging to his box of the respondent and also a deficit of Rs.28/- in his cash box was proved. It is submitted that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated that after the cross-examination of the respondent herein, he was directed to furnish a statement in defence,

C/SCA/12094/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022

which was also considered by the disciplinary authority. Thus, he has submitted that the departmental inquiry was held in compliance of the principles of natural justice and hence, the Labour Court could not have passed the impugned order declaring the departmental inquiry as defective and in violation of principles of natural justice.

[4] In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.P.C.Chaudhari has submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable as all the contentions questioning domestic inquiry can be raised after the final award is passed in subsequent proceedings in case the award is against the petitioner. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Cooper Engineering Limited vs. P.P. Mundhe, AIR 1975 SC 1900 and the judgment dated 04.08.2004 passed in Special Civil Application No.8754 of 2003 and allied matters by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

[4.1] Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhari has further submitted that the inquiry was in fact defective and in violation of principles of natural justice. He has submitted that pursuant to document at Exh.64 the Labour Court had observed that the matter should be placed before the Lok Adalat for the purpose of settlement in view of the negotiation going on between the parties. Vide Exh.66 the respondent-workman had filed a pursis in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and he was required to be reinstated. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, the petition cannot be entertained. He has submitted that such facts can be asserted from the depositions at Exh.67.

       C/SCA/12094/2020                                    ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022




[4.2] Learned             advocate       Mr.P.C.Chaudhari          has        further

submitted that in fact after the settlement was arrived, thereafter the petitioner Corporation filed Special Civil Application No.5927 of 2015 challenging the award passed by the Labour Court. It is submitted by him that the aforesaid petition was allowed vide order dated 29.02.2016 and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court since the settlement was not signed by the petitioner, however, liberty was reserved in favour of the workman to challenge the departmental inquiry.

[5] Though, various contentions are raised by both the parties, this Court is not inclined to enter into the same, since any observations at this stage would affect the reference proceedings pending before the Labour Court. The issue is in narrow compass as to whether the order passed by the Labour Court declaring the departmental inquiry as invalid can be challenged at this stage by filing the writ petition.

[6] At this stage, it would be apposite to refer the observations made in the case of Cooper Engineering (supra):-

"22.We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the labour court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the labour court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue.. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the labour court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if

C/SCA/12094/2020 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022

worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication ."

[7] The Coordinate Bench of this Court on a similar issue, after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Cooper Engineering (supra), in the judgment dated 04.08.2004 passed in Special Civil Application No.8754 of 2003 and allied petitions, has observed thus:-

"9. From the above decisions and in particular from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering (supra), one thing is clear that whenever the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal decides the validity of the departmental inquiry conducted by the employer at the interlocutory stage, writ petition challenging the said order would not be maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cooper Engineering (supra) observed that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision which is at a preliminary issue and the same can be agitated even after the final award. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also observed that it will be legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at that stage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also observed that the above observations are made to ensure that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication."

Thus, it is well settled proposition of law that whenever the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal decides the validity of the departmental inquiry conducted by the employer at an interlocutory stage, a writ petition challenging the said order would not be maintainable.

Thus, the present writ petition is disposed of with a clarification that it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the legality, validity and findings of domestic inquiry after the final award is passed before the appropriate forum by filing appropriate proceedings.

       C/SCA/12094/2020                     ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022




[8]      Since the Reference is of 2007, the Labour Court is

directed to decide the same preferably within a period of six months. In view of the above, the present petition is rejected. RULE is discharged.

                                                        Sd/-     .
                                                (A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NABILA