Orissa High Court
M/S. Rathi Steel And Power Limited vs Presiding Officer on 12 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.4984 of 2013
M/s. Rathi Steel and Power Limited, .... Petitioner
New Delhi
Ms. Zenish Marywallace, Advocate
-versus-
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, .... Opposite Parties
Sambalpur and another
Mr. P. K. Muduli, AGA and
Mr. S. Sahoo, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R. K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 12.07.2022
12. 1. The present petition by the Management seeks the quashing of
two orders-(i) an order dated 11th December, 2012 passed by the
Labour Court, Sambalpur in I.D. Case No.14 of 2011 declining the
prayer of the Petitioner to engage a lawyer to conduct its case; and
(ii) an order dated 5th February, 2013 passed by the Labour Court in
I.D. Case No.14 of 2011 rejecting the application filed by the
Petitioner that the issue regarding fairness of the domestic enquiry
should be decided as a preliminary issue permitting the
Management to lead evidence in that regard.
2. As far as the first impugned order is concerned, learned counsel
for the Petitioner states that by virtue of a judgment dated 13th May,
2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.20007 of 2013, the issue
has been decided against the Management. This Court has perused
the said judgment by calling for the file of the said writ petition and
finds that indeed the prayer of the Management in that case on
similar terms has been rejected. Accordingly, the challenge to the
first impugned order dated 11th December, 2012 of the Labour
Court is hereby rejected.
3. As far as the second impugned order is concerned, it is contrary
to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. v. Smt.
Lakshmidevamma AIR 2001 SC 2090, where in para 39, it has
been held as under:
"39. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to hold
that if the employer does not express his desire to lead
additional evidence in reply to statement of claim in
proceedings under Section 10 or when an application is
filed for approval under section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the
employer cannot be allowed to exercise option at a later
stage of the proceedings by making an application for the
purpose. The employer's request, when made before close
of proceedings, deserves to be examined by the Labour
Court/Tribunal on its own merits and it goes without
saying that the Labour Court/Tribunal will exercise
discretion on well settled judicial principles and would
examine the bona fides of the employer in making such an
application."
4. With the law being clear in this regard, the Court sets aside the
order dated 5th February 2013 passed by the Labour Court,
Sambalpur and holds that the prayer of the Management to be
permitted to lead evidence on the preliminary issue of the fairness
of domestic enquiry shall stand allowed and further that that issue
will be decided first by the Labour Court as a preliminary issue.
5. The interim order dated 17th May, 2013 passed by this Court is
accordingly vacated.
6. I.D. Case No.14 of 2011 will now be listed before the Labour
Court, Sambalpur on 29th August, 2022. The Labour Court will
proceed in accordance with law by taking up as a preliminary issue,
the fairness of the domestic enquiry, and permit the Management
and the Workman to lead their respective evidence on that issue.
After deciding that issue first, the Labour Court will proceed in
accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. A copy of this
order be sent forthwith to the concerned Labour Court.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R. K. Pattanaik)
Judge
M. Panda
