1. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a) Wherefore, it is just, necessary, equitable and expedient that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records leading to thepassing of the order dated 29.03.2016 and order dated 22.11.2016 passed by the Additional Labour Court Bengaluru in Reference No.19/209 marked and produced as Annexure-G & K.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ of order or direction by quashing the orders dated 29.03.2016 and 22.11.2016 passed in Reference No.19/2009 which are marked as Annexure-‘G’ & ‘K’ and direct the respondents to produce the documents.
c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of these writ petitions, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The services of the petitioner is terminated and it was subject matter in Ref.No.19/2009 on the file of Presiding Offficer, Additional Labour Court Bengaluru. The petitioner filed two interlocutory applications under Section 11 of the Industrial Dispute Act r/w Order XIII Rule 1 of CPC in respect of summoning 12 documents. The said application was presented in the month of January 2016. During the pendency of the same one more identical application was submitted dated nil. Both the applications were taken note by the Labour Court and held that the documents to be summoned are not relevant for the purpose of petitioner’s termination, those documents relate to co-employee.
3. The contention of petitioner is that petitioner is victimized and parity in imposing of penalty on that account, those documents are necessary. Summoning those records may not be relevant as held by the Labour Court obviously for the reasons that those records have no bearing on the petitioner’s grievance. Assuming that if there is any parity in imposing penalty on the identical charges, in that event petitioner can urge those grounds in the pleadings and as well as during the course of arguments and it will be countered appropriately by the management.
4. In view of these facts and circumstances there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to urge parity in contention imposition of penalty among two employees before the Industrial Tribunal. The same shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding subject reference by the Labour Court.
Comments