Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Common questions of law and fact being involved in both the writ petitions the same have been heard analogously and will be governed by the same judgment.

2. In each of the writ petitions the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the Tribunal directing that the workman will have to adduce evidence first to discharge the initial onus relating to validity or invalidity of the domestic enquiry.

3. In each of such cases on reference of the industrial dispute to the Tribunal, the Tribunal was required to decide as a preliminary point as to the validity of domestic enquiry which was challenged by the workman.

11. Relying on a judgment of Bombay High Court and on certain Supreme Court decisions His Lordship is of the view when the validity of the domestic enquiry is to be decided by the Tribunal as a preliminary point, the onus is upon the workman to prove that the domestic enquiry was not valid and proper as the workman challenges the validity and propriety of the domestic enquiry.

12. In my view, when an industrial dispute is referred to the Tribunal under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication of the question whether the dismissal or termination of the workman is justified and the Tribunal is called upon to decide the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary point, the burden is certainly on the employer to satisfy the Tribunal that such domestic enquiry was held validly and properly, when the employer wants to rely on such domestic enquiry as his defence.

60. Such burden will be upon the employer to prove that the termination of the employee was made after holding a valid and proper domestic enquiry more so when the Tribunal asks the employer to decide the same as a preliminary point.

61. This is also because of the reasons that it is the settled procedure that before any Court of law or Tribunal when a party raises a point of demurrer or a preliminary point, he will have to address first and satisfy the Court or Tribunal on such preliminary point raised by him.

71. In the instant case as pointed out hereinabove it will be certainly in violation of the principles of natural justice if the Tribunal calls upon a party to adduce evidence first although the burden is on the other party to prove that domestic enquiry was validly and properly held and hence the termination of the workman is justified.

72. But the other observations of the Constitution Bench in the said case that the Evidence Act has no application to enquiry conducted by the Tribunal even though they may be judicial in character establishes that in the case of Ganges Manufacturing, (supra) Justice BHATTACHARYA as also the Bombay High Court which was followed by Justice BHATTACHARYA unnecessarily emphasised on Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of deciding who should be called upon to adduce evidence first when the Tribunal is asked by the employer to decide the question of validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary point.