Seketry Singh Tomar vs S.R.F. Limited
2021 Latest Caselaw 8164 MP

                                    1                              MP-3751-2021
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MP No. 3751 of 2021
                       (SEKETRY SINGH TOMAR Vs S.R.F. LIMITED)


Gwalior, Dated : 03-12-2021
      Shri Alok Kumar Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri B.S.Bais, counsel for the respondent.

This petition has been filed against the decision of the Labour Court dated 27.9.2021 passed in 27/A/ID Act/2016 (Reference) by Presiding officer, Labour Court No.2 Gwalior, whereby, the issue related to the validity

of the inquiry has been decided against the claimant workman.

Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant submits that on the date fixed in the inquiry, the claimant/petitioner could not appear due to bereavement in his family. He informed his inability to the departmental representative who assured him to inform him next date of the inquiry, but he did not do so. Thereafter, the notice to the claimant/petitioner was published in two small newspapers which had no circulation at the place of residence of

the petitioner and the exparte inquiry was conducted in his absence. Thus, the inquiry conducted against the petitioner is violative of principles of natural justice. Still the learned labour Court has held the inquiry valid. The decision of the labour Court is quite contrary to the fact and law. The petition deserves to be allowed.

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order of labour Court deciding the issue of validity of the inquiry cannot be challenged by way of such petition. Hence, the petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner was well aware of the date fixed in the inquiry. He himself did not appear before the inquiry officer and still the inquiry officer got the notice published in two local newspapers. The petitioner shall have the opportunity to make submissions on remaining other issues. No interference in the impugned order is called for. The petition deserves to be dismissed. He 2 MP-3751-2021 has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Cooper Engineering Ltd. Vs. P.P.Mundhe reported in (1975) 2 SCC 661 and by this court in Torrent Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Kumar Sharma in W.P.No.8563 of 2012 on 20.11.2014, Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank Vs. Jinesh Kumar Kothia in W.P.No.7962 of 2010

on 9.8.2010 and Babulal Malviya and Others Vs. Raghunath and Others in M.P.No.2566 of 2021 on 28.10.2021 and by High Court of Karnataka in the case of Motor Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. D.Adinarayanappa and Another reported in ILR 1978 KAR 696.

Heard. Considered.

In view of the legal position expounded in the above cited judgments, the labour Court are obliged to decide the issue of validity of inquiry at primary stage. It has been further held that the challenge to the decision of the labour Court on validity of inquiry is not maintainable.

In this case also, the learned labour court has decided the issue of validity of inquiry primarily, therefore, in view of the above legal position, the challenge made by the petitioner herein to the decision of the labour court is not maintainable. However on merits also, it may be safely observed that the petitioner/claimant was admittedly aware of the inquiry being conducted against him. He was also aware of the date fixed in the inquiry. If on the date fixed in the inquiry, he was not able to attend the proceedings due to alleged bereavement in his family, he could have easily contacted the departmental representative or the inquiry officer to receive the information about next date fixed in the inquiry. But the claimant/petitioner did not care to enquire about the next date fixed even for 2-3 months period when the inquiry was finally concluded. Thus on merits also, the finding of the labour Court cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The petition is therefore, dismissed.

(SATISH KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE 3 MP-3751-2021 Rks

RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2021.12.04 16:28:33 +05'30'