A dismissal based on an unfair domestic enquiry denying adequate opportunity cannot stand.

The Company charged its workman, Yenkoba, with carrying away nine pieces of company scrap or iron material on 31 July 2005 and dismissed him after a domestic enquiry.

The Central Government referred the dismissal dispute to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Labour Court held the termination unjustified, set it aside, and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages.

The Company challenged that award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

During the writ proceedings, the High Court had stayed the award subject to the Company reinstating Yenkoba on his last-drawn pay; the Company did so.

1. Whether the Labour Court’s award setting aside Yenkoba’s dismissal and granting reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages warranted interference in the writ proceedings.

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court may review a Labour Court award, but the judgment identifies no specific precedent setting out a narrower standard of review.

It states that a court or tribunal may interfere with a punishment where the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper.

The disciplinary process was governed by the Company’s standing orders, while Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provided the basis for referring the dispute for adjudication.

No individual Supreme Court precedent is named in the judgment.

The High Court found the Labour Court’s conclusion that the enquiry was unfair supported by the record.

Yenkoba’s absence at a later enquiry sitting was treated as non-cooperation, and the enquiry proceeded on the Company’s evidence without the fullest opportunity being afforded to him.

The Court also noted that the charge sheet alleged Yenkoba alone was carrying the material, whereas the Company later relied on the presence of two other persons; the police complaint likewise referred only to Yenkoba.

The records also differed on the material’s weight—approximately 50 kg in the charge sheet and 12 kg in the complaint.

In view of these deficiencies and the workman’s reinstatement under the interim order, the Court found no basis to disturb the Labour Court’s award.

It rejected the writ petition, leaving in force the directions setting aside the dismissal and granting reinstatement, continuity of service, and 30% back wages.