Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. orderr.r. prasad, j.1. through the impugned order dated 15.10.2003 passed by the labour court, jamshedpur in reference case no. 3 of 1989 prayer made by the petitioner m/s. tata motors limited for allowing it to adduce additional evidence to establish the competence of the enquiring officer and also disciplinary authority of holding enquiry and to pass order has been refused.2. the fact of the case is that the respondent no. 2, a workman was appointed and joined the service of the petitioner's company on 2.9.1959 as tool crib attendant, who was subsequently promoted as ward keeper and then assistant store keeper and continued as such until 10.8.1982 when his services were terminated after being found guilty of misconduct in a domestic enquiry which was conducted in presence of the petitioner and was given full opportunity to him to defend himself. however, when a dispute was raised, the government referred the dispute to the labour court, jamshedur for adjudication wherein respondent no. 2 at first instance challenged the validity, fairness, propriety and decision of the domestic enquiry. the said matter was taken as a preliminary issue which was decided against the workman as it was held by the court that enquiry held by the management against the workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. thereafter, the court proceeded with to determine the issue of misconduct. on which issue the parties led to the evidences and when the matter was at the stage of argument, an application was filed on behalf of the management for allowing him to adduce additional evidence to establish the competence of the enquiring officer and the disciplinary authority on being apprehensive that the said matter would be raised on behalf of the respondent but the apprehension of the petitioner seems to be quite unfounded as the said issue was intrinsically involved when validity of domestic enquiry was taken up as a preliminary issue wherein the enquiry was found to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice and as such the issue seems to have taken its finality.3. in that view of the matter, i do not find any illegality in the impugned order. hence, the same needs not to be interfered with by this court. accordingly, this application stands dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

R.R. Prasad, J.

1. Through the impugned order dated 15.10.2003 passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 3 of 1989 prayer made by the petitioner M/s. Tata Motors Limited for allowing it to adduce additional evidence to establish the competence of the enquiring officer and also disciplinary authority of holding enquiry and to pass order has been refused.

2. The fact of the case is that the respondent No. 2, a workman was appointed and joined the service of the petitioner's Company on 2.9.1959 as Tool Crib Attendant, who was subsequently promoted as Ward Keeper and then Assistant Store Keeper and continued as such until 10.8.1982 when his services were terminated after being found guilty of misconduct in a domestic enquiry which was conducted in presence of the petitioner and was given full opportunity to him to defend himself. However, when a dispute was raised, the Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Jamshedur for adjudication wherein respondent No. 2 at first instance challenged the validity, fairness, propriety and decision of the domestic enquiry. The said matter was taken as a preliminary issue which was decided against the workman as it was held by the Court that enquiry held by the Management against the workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Thereafter, the Court proceeded with to determine the issue of misconduct. On which issue the parties led to the evidences and when the matter was at the stage of argument, an application was filed on behalf of the Management for allowing him to adduce additional evidence to establish the competence of the enquiring officer and the disciplinary authority on being apprehensive that the said matter would be raised on behalf of the respondent but the apprehension of the petitioner seems to be quite unfounded as the said issue was intrinsically involved when validity of domestic enquiry was taken up as a preliminary issue wherein the enquiry was found to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice and as such the issue seems to have taken its finality.

3. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the same needs not to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.