{"id":242850,"date":"2021-01-27T09:00:32","date_gmt":"2021-01-27T03:30:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=242850"},"modified":"2021-01-29T09:52:29","modified_gmt":"2021-01-29T04:22:29","slug":"failure-to-make-an-enquiry-before-dismissal-or-discharge-of-a-workman-can-be-justified-by-leading-evidence-before-the-labour-court-sc-clarifies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/27\/failure-to-make-an-enquiry-before-dismissal-or-discharge-of-a-workman-can-be-justified-by-leading-evidence-before-the-labour-court-sc-clarifies\/","title":{"rendered":"Failure to make an enquiry before dismissal or discharge of a workman can be justified by leading evidence before the Labour Court: SC clarifies"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>The 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, Navin Sinha and Indu Malhotra*<\/strong><\/span> has set aside the impugned judgment of Uttaranchal High Court, whereby the High Court had set aside the award passed by the Labour Court on the ground that no disciplinary enquiry was held by the School regarding alleged abandonment of service by the respondent.<\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>The Respondent was initially engaged as an Assistant Teacher in Jai Bharat Junior High School, Haridwar during the period July, 1993 to 21-05-1994, which was an unaided private institution. Subsequently, she worked as a Clerk from 01-07-1994. From 24-05-2005 the School started receiving grants-in-aid from the State, and came to be governed by the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006. The Respondent filed a complaint before the School contending that she had worked continuously up to 07-03-2006. It was that her services were illegally retrenched since 01-07-1997 without granting her any hearing, or payment of retrenchment compensation. The school, on the other hand, argued that on account of her continuous absence, the School had to engage another clerk in her place. The Respondent never made any grievance about her alleged termination till 2006, which was made after 9 years only when the School started receiving grants-in-aid from the State and became a Government School. It was further argued that the employment of the respondent was illegal, since the father of the respondent was a member of the Managing Committee, and her mother was the Chairman employed by the School.<\/strong> It was also stated that minimum qualification requirement for teachers was of B.Ed. and Teacher training while the respondent was only 12th<\/sup> passed.<\/p>\n

Findings of the Courts Below <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Labour Court vide Award dated 22-08-2016 held that the respondent was not entitled to get any relief as there was sufficient evidence adduced by the Management to prove her continued absence from the School since 01-07-1997. However, the said award of the Court was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the respondent had failed to discharge the onus to prove her employment till 08-03-2006. It was only after the School started receiving grants-in-aid, the respondent filed the present application after over 9 years. Hence, the High Court had set aside the Award dated on the sole ground that no disciplinary enquiry was held by the School regarding alleged abandonment of service by the respondent.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Observation and Decision<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Bench cited Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory, <\/em>(1965) 3 SCC 588<\/a>,<\/em> wherein, it had been held that, \u201cA defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Reliance was also placed on Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Management of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd., <\/em>(1973) 1 SCC 813<\/a>, <\/em>wherein the Court had made following observations:<\/p>\n