- Home
- /
- Labour & Service
- /
- Industrial Disputes Act | Labour...
Industrial Disputes Act | Labour Court Has Ample Power To Examine Correctness Of Finding Of Inquiry Officer In Discharge Or Dismissal Order: Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar
24 April 2024 12:00 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak held that the Labour Court has been given ample power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to examine the correctness of the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer in passing the discharge or dismissal order. The High Court held that Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act denotes the power of the Labour...
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak held that the Labour Court has been given ample power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to examine the correctness of the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer in passing the discharge or dismissal order.
The High Court held that Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act denotes the power of the Labour Courts/ Tribunal/ National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workman. It held that while examining the matter for granting relief to the workman, Labour Court is entrusted power to examine the legality and validity of the discharge/dismissal order.
Brief Facts:
The Labour Court, upon receiving a reference under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act regarding the validity of the termination order, framed a preliminary issue regarding the procedure adopted by the employer during the enquiry. The Presiding Officer of Labour Court upheld the validity of the departmental enquiry procedure conducted by the employer, which led to the termination of the Petitioner's service. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court (“High Court”) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Petitioner argued that the Labour Court order restricts his ability to contest these findings before the labour tribunal or court. The Petitioner referred to Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, arguing that after Labour Court's order only quantum of punishment has to be seen and nothing remains to be decided qua finding returned by the Inquiry Officer during departmental enquiry.
In response, the Respondent argued that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the Petitioner's right to challenge the findings of the Inquiry Officer was curtailed. It contended that the matter was still pending before the labour court for challenging the termination order, and the issue of the Inquiry Officer's findings can be more appropriately addressed by the labour court after a thorough examination of the evidence presented by both parties.
Observations by the High Court:
The High Cour noted that in the final paragraph of the order, the Labour Court unequivocally stated that the Petitioner was given ample opportunity to present evidence and defend themselves during the departmental enquiry. The High Court further emphasized that all necessary documents were provided to the Petitioner during this process, and the procedures adhered to the principles of natural justice.
The High Court referred to the provisions of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, which empowers the Labour Courts, Tribunals, and National Tribunals to provide appropriate relief in cases of workman discharge or dismissal. Within this framework, Section 11-A of the Act grants these bodies the authority to assess whether a discharge or dismissal order was justified. Importantly, the High Court held that the language of Section 11-A does not restrict the workman's right to challenge the reasoning or findings of the Inquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry.
The High Court held that the phrase "is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified" in Section 11-A explicitly indicates the Labour Tribunal's authority to scrutinize the correctness of the Inquiry Officer's findings leading to the termination. This interpretation, the High Court held, does not undermine the workman's right to contest the reasoning or findings of the Inquiry Officer.
Therefore, the High Court held that there were no justifiable grounds to intervene in the Labour Court's order. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Title: Charan Pal Singh vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Second Up Ghaziabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
Advocate for the Petitioner: Jamal Ahmad Khan
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C.