Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963
10. Ultimately the enquiry should be held in the presence of the workman and witnesses should be examined in his presence and he must be allowed to cross examine and if he so desires, he can also be allowed to bring his own witness and give evidence on his behalf. This is the elementary principle of conducting any enquiry as held by the Supreme Court in Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen reported in AIR 1963 SC 1719. The officer namely the first respondent having found prima facie case against the workman and that the procedural requirement of giving one month pay and filing of an application as part of the same transaction and having been held there was no lack of bonafide on the part of the petitioner corporation in initiating action went at tangent and recorded a finding contrary to the exhibits marked before him. Reference made by him in Ex.A17 is misreading of the said statement. The Deputy Manager did not deny the furnishing of the document. He merely stated that did not form part of the charge memo and as and when the same is produced in the enquiry, it will always be given to him. It is not the case of the workman that the document was not furnished to him later. On the contrary, he himself filed an additional typed set of documents containing the complaint report received from the passenger. Whether the report of the passenger was obtained in his presence or behind his back is essentially a question of appreciating the evidence and it does not vitiate the enquiry conducted against the workman.