Madras High Court
The Management vs R.Prabhu on 6 July, 2021
W.A.No.1522 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.1522 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.10337 of 2019
The Management
K.N.M.Mills(P) Limited,
Coimbatore - 19. .. Appellant
Vs
1.R.Prabhu
2.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Coimbatore. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 03.10.2018 made in w.P.No.1710 of 2018.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.Balan Haridas for R1
R2 - Court
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This appeal lies on a very narrow compass. The first respondent raised
the dispute before the Labour Court by raising the claim under Section 2-A(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act. Pending the proceedings before the Labour
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1522 of 2019
Court in I.D.No.27 of 2012, strangely, the first respondent filed an application
stating that the enquiry was not fair and proper. The Labour Court decided
the preliminary issue holding that the enquiry was conducted in a fair
manner. This was put to challenge before the learned Single Judge who set
aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration. Challenging
the same, the present appeal has been filed.
2. We are not reiterating the settled position of law in this regard. The
question of fairness in a domestic inquiry is a matter to be proved by the
employer. If the employer requests for the same, it is for the Labour Court to
consider it. Even then, the decision made there under is not justiciable by
invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To put it differently, it is for
the Labour Court to decide at the time of deciding the matter one way or the
other. Any primary finding will not stand in the way of the Labour Court to
adjudicate upon the said issue at the time of deciding it one way or the other.
Therefore, the entire issue is nothing but academic. We are of the view that
the first respondent ought not to have filed this application. If the Labour
Court comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is not fair and proper then the
consequence would follow while considering the final relief sought for.
3. In such view of the matter, the writ appeal stands disposed of by
making it clear that there is no need to set aside the preliminary order
passed with the observation that the Labour Court shall frame the issue and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1522 of 2019
decide this at the time of hearing the I.D. finally without being influenced by
the preliminary order passed by it and the orders passed by this Court. We
make it clear that in the event of any conclusion being arriving at, enquiry is
not fair and proper, the consequence would follow. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
4. Taking into consideration the long pendency of the dispute raised,
we direct the Labour Court, to dispose of I.D.No.27 of 2012 within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
06.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.1522 of 2019
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and
R.N.MANJULA,J.
mmi
W.A.No.1522 of 2019
06.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
