Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

of the first respondent under sub-cl.(c) of cl. (10) referred to above. It will also be seen that sub-cl. (a) of Cl. (10) incorporates, substantially the principles of natural justice in the conduct of an inquiry and also of giving a reasonable opportunity to the workman concerned to defend himself, which includes a right to cross-examine the witnesses on the side of the management, and also to adduce evidence in support of his defence.

In support of the first contention, the learned Solicitor urged that the second inquiry by B. D. Sharma was conducted at the instance of the workman and that there was not duty cast on the Inquiry Officer to summon witnesses required by the workman. The learned Solicitor urged that apart from the fact that an Inquiry Officer has no power to summon witnesses, it is well established by the decisions of this Court that it is the duty of the party, who wants to have witnesses examined to produce them before the Inquiry Officer for examination. The reasoning of the Tribunal, that the principles of natural justice have been violated in the domestic inquiry by non-summoning by the Inquiry Officer of Pooran Singh and Sanjhi. Ram, as requested by the workman, is very strenuously attacked as erroneous in law. The legal position regarding the circumstances under which the Tribunal can interfere with the domestic inquiry have been laid down by this Court. Among the circumstances which will justify the interference by the Tribunal are : when the order of discharge is punitive, or mala fide or when it amounts to victimization or unfair labour practice. (Vide Tata Oil Mills Company, Ltd. v. Their Workmen) (1). The order terminating the, services of the workman can also be set aside when there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, in the conduct of the inquiry which led to the passing of the order of termination. The extent of the jurisdiction of a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to interfere with an order of termination passed on the basis of a domestic inquiry held by the management have also been reiterated by this Court in Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. Its Work-

Having due regard to the principles laid down in the above decisions, the contention of the learned Solicitor that the Inquiry Officer B. D. Sharma was justified in refusing to examine the three officers of the appellant branch as desired by the workman and that he was also justified in refusing to summon the two Cashiers. namely, Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram to give evidence, on the ground that it is the duty of the workman to have them produced 'for giving evidence, no doubt, may on the face of it, appear to be very attractive. But when the facts are considered, it will be clear that no reasonable opportunity has been provided, in the domestic inquiry to the workman to place his offence. As emphasised by this Court in Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen (2), the termination of an employee's service must be preceded by a proper domestic inquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Therefore, it is evident that if the inquiry is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice or if no reasonable opportunity was provided to a delinquent to place his defence, it cannot be characterized as a proper domestic inquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice. We will be indicating later that the domestic inquiry held in this case suffers from a very serious infirmity.

777

it on the gorund that a proper domestic inquiry has been held by it on the basis of which the order impugned has been passed. It is also open to the management to,justify on facts that the order passed by it was proper. But the point to be noted is that tile inquiry that is conducted by the Tribunal is a composite inquiry regarding the order which is under challenge. If the management defends its action solely on the basis that the domestic inquiry held by it is proper and valid and if the Tribunal holds against the mana- gement on that point, the management will fail. On the other hand, if the management relies not only on the validity of the domestic inquiry, but also adduces evidence 'before the Tribunal justifying its action, it is open to the Tribunal to accept the evidence adduced by the management and hold in its favour even if its finding is against the management regarding the validity of ,-he domestic inquiry. It is essentially a matter for the management to decide about the stand 'that it proposes to take before the Tribunal. It may be emphasised, that it is the right of the management to sustain its order by adducing, also independent evidence before the Tribunal. It is a right given to the management and it is for the management to avail itself of the said opportunity. We will now refer to the decisions of the High Courts, which have been referred by the learned Solicitor. In M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Their Workers through Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha and others(1) a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court had to consider a claim made by the management that if a Labour Court comes to a conclusion that the domestic inquiry was not fair, it should have given notice to the management regarding its finding about the defect in the domestic inquiry and then give an opportunity to the management to adduce independent evidence before it to establish the charge against the workman. This contention was negatived by the High Court on the ground that there was no obligation, in law, on the part of the Labour Court to indicate its mind about the infirmities in the domestic inquiry at any stage before it gave its finding in the award.

In the case before us the appellant has no right to make a grievance that he should have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence on facts before the Tribunal justifying the action taken by it against the workman. The written statement filed by the appellant before the Industrial Tribunal makes it quite clear that the appellant was prepared to sustain the validity of the order of discharge solely on the basis of the domestic inquiry conducted by B. D. Sharma. The evidence adduced before the, Tribunal was also of the Inquiry Officer B. D. Sharma and of the officer who passed the order of termination. Both these witnesses referred only to the proceedings connected with the domestic inquiry and gave evidence to the effect that the workman was given all facilities to participate in the domestic inquiry. The management's stand was that it is prepared to justify the legality of the order of discharge solely on the basis of the domestic inquiry held by it as a result of which the order of discharge was passed. It never offered to produce (1) [1967] Labour and Industrial Cases 510.