Failed To Adjudicate In Consonance With High Court's Order: Karnataka HC Sets Aside Labour Court's Order For Travelling Beyond Scope Of Remand
The Karnataka High Court recently allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging a decision passed by the Labour Court, which following a remand order by the High Court to address a particular issue erroneously proceeded to treat the dispute as if it were being adjudicated for the first time.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani observed that the Labour Court had made a significant error when handling a dispute as the Labour Court acknowledged the previous remand order, but made a flawed approach by essentially treating the case as if it were a completely new adjudication, rather than focusing on the specific issues raised in the remand order.
Advocate HR Renuka appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate K. Srinivasa appeared for the Respondent.
Background: The Writ Petition involved a person who had been selected for a Driver position in a corporation based on certificates provided by them. However, it was discovered that the Transfer Certificate he had submitted for verification did not match the school's records. Subsequently, the corporation issued charges against the employee, alleging that they had secured employment by presenting false certificates. Also, the disciplinary authority upheld the charges and terminated the respondent's employment.
The aggrieved respondent then took the matter to the Labour Court, which upheld the charges and dismissal. The respondent challenged this award through a Writ Petition. The High Court's previous ruling upheld the Labour Court's decision. Still, it remanded the case specifically for a reconsideration of certain documents: the Declaration, Undertaking, and Indemnity bond executed by the worker.
The Court further noted that it cannot discuss much about the enquiry proceedings so also the order of dismissal, since the same has been confirmed by this Court in an earlier round of litigation, however, what is required to be considered is whether the Labour Court is justified in traveling beyond the scope of the remand order and justified in ordering reinstatement of the respondent.
"This Court had confirmed the Award passed by the Labour Court on an earlier occasion. The scope of remand was limited that is to say only to consider the documents namely Declaration, Undertaking and the Indemnity bond", stated the order.
Answering the same, the Court held, "In my view, the same is untenable. As already noted above, the scope of remand is very much limited. Hence, the Labour Court has unnecessarily made exercise and extenso referred to the material on record and answered the points which were already concluded in an earlier proceedings. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters, in particular the adjudication of the dispute in consonance with the order passed by this Court after remand. For the reasons."
Accordingly, the Karnataka High Court found that the Labour Court had made an error in its approach after the remand. The order stated that instead of focusing on the prescribed documents, the Labour Court reexamined the entire case and ordered the worker's reinstatement which was contrary to the High Court's remand order, which had directed the Labour Court to limit its review to the aforementioned documents and not to reevaluate the entire dispute.
"After remand the Labour Court while adjudicating the dispute took note of the order of remand, however on an erroneous approach went ahead and dealt with the matter and decided the dispute as if it is adjudicating the dispute for the first time. This is also incorrect. The reason is simple. As already noted above, the scope of remand was very much limited, what was required to be considered by the Labour Court after remand is to give a finding on the documents i.e., Declaration, Undertaking and Indemnity bond", stated the Court in its order.
Cause Title: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v G. Veerabhadraswamy [Writ PETITION NO.24064 OF 2016]
