Summary
The Supreme Court remanded a security guard’s termination dispute because the Labour Court wrongly treated punishment for misconduct as retrenchment and failed to follow the procedure for examining a domestic enquiry and permitting proof of misconduct. The finding that the employee had worked 240 days was preserved. The University was to receive an opportunity to prove its pleaded misconduct before the Labour Court, with punishment then considered under Section 11-A.
Issues
- How the Labour Court should examine a defective domestic enquiry and an employer’s request to prove misconduct independently.
- Whether punitive termination could be treated as retrenchment.
Held
- Termination founded on adverse findings in a domestic enquiry was punitive. Section 2(oo) excludes termination by way of punishment from retrenchment; the Labour Court therefore erred in treating this case as illegal retrenchment. (¶¶ 19, 24, 25, 26)
- The validity of the domestic enquiry should first be examined as a preliminary issue. Where the employer pleads misconduct and timely seeks an opportunity, an adverse finding on the enquiry requires an opportunity to establish the charge independently, with a corresponding opportunity for the employee. The cited principles do not require the Tribunal to invite fresh employer evidence suo motu where none was requested before proceedings closed. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24)
- Whether the enquiry is upheld or misconduct is independently proved, the Labour Court must consider the termination and any justified lesser punishment under Section 11-A. The Supreme Court did not itself finally determine guilt or sustain termination. (¶¶ 21, 23, 30, 31)
- The factual finding of 240 days’ work was preserved, supporting labour-law protection. On remand the employer was to prove the misconduct pleaded in its written statement; fresh notice was required to the employee and adjudication within three months of its service. (¶¶ 27, 30, 31, 32)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and Labour Court award set aside to the indicated extent, preserving the 240-day finding. Reference remanded for evidence and fresh decision within three months after service of notice on the employee.