Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.1 Feeling aggrieved by the said decision, the corporation filed present petition.

4. Ms. Mandavia, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation, assailed the impugned award dated 5.8.2008 and submitted that the learned Tribunal travelled beyond its jurisdiction and therefore, the award is not sustainable. She submitted that while considering application seeking approval filed by employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, the learned Tribunal cannot enter into the merits of the proceedings and cannot examine the case of termination of employee on merits, so as to decide as to whether the termination is justified or not. She submitted that in present case, the Page 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 23 Created On Sun Aug 13 16:41:55 IST 2017 C/SCA/4989/2009 JUDGMENT learned Tribunal examined the case on merits and declared the inquiry defective on the ground that corporation could not have proceeded in the inquiry without appointing presenting officer and that inquiry officer had put some questions to the employee. The Tribunal entered into merits of the case and learned Tribunal declared the inquiry defective. The learned Tribunal rejected the approval application which is not permissible and that therefore, the award impugned in present petition should be set aside.

10. While examining the approval application, the learned Tribunal entered into the merits of the domestic inquiry and while examining the record and proceedings of the domestic inquiry on merits, the learned Tribunal noticed that the Inquiry Officer had put some questions to the delinquent employee. On that ground, learned Tribunal declared the domestic inquiry defective and rejected approval application.

15. In present case, it appears that while considering approval application, learned Tribunal entered into the merits of the case and examined minute details of the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer. Having noticed that the corporation had not appointed Presenting Officer, the learned Tribunal, without proper examination of relevant aspects and without considering that applicable regulations of the corporation provide that inquiry may be conducted without appointing presenting officer, formed the opinion that the Inquiry Officer had played role of Prosecutor as well as Judge. On the said premise, learned Tribunal declared that the domestic inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal also held that the Inquiry Officer had put some questions to the claimant and proceeded on the premise that inquiry officer cannot put any question to the employee/delinquent, the Court declared the inquiry defective.

17. Further, as mentioned hereinabove earlier, the learned Tribunal appears to have proceeded on the basis of contention by the workman that the Inquiry Officer had asked certain questions during proceedings of inquiry to him.

17.1 The learned Tribunal, however, does not appear to have carefully examined the nature of questions put by the Inquiry Officer to the concerned workman and the learned Tribunal also did not address the question as to whether any innocuous question put by the inquiry officer, for purpose of seeking clarification would render the inquiry defective and whether some innocuous questions by the Inquiry officer for the purpose of seeking clarification from the concerned workman would automatically and as a rule, vitiate the domestic inquiry. Even if it is assumed that the learned Tribunal can examine such aspects while deciding approval application, then in that event, the learned Tribunal would be obliged to examine the nature of questions put by the Inquiry Officer and to also consider whether Page 20 HC-NIC Page 20 of 23 Created On Sun Aug 13 16:41:55 IST 2017 C/SCA/4989/2009 JUDGMENT some questions, which may not prejudicially affect the concerned workman i.e. the question(s) which may not cause any prejudice to the workman, put by the Inquiry Officer, would be sufficient to declare that the Inquiry Officer acted as Prosecutor as well as Judge and to condemn the inquiry on said ground. Said decision can be reached only after close scrutiny of nature of question put by the Inquiry Officer and after addressing the issue as to whether the questions put by the inquiry officer were in nature of cross-examination and whether the questions actually caused prejudice to the workman. Whereas, in present case, the learned Tribunal has not addressed relevant aspects. The learned Tribunal ought to have confined its inquiry and probe as regards legality and propriety of the inquiry and compliance with principles of natural justice by keeping in focus the limitations of jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal in deciding application under Section 33(2)(b) as explained by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. (supra).