SARAN MOTOR PVT LTD Vs. VISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which arises for our decision in these two appeals to whether the domestic enquiry held by the appellant, Saran Motors (Private). Ltd., against two of its employees, Vishwanath and Saran Singh, was vitiated by the fact that the enquiry officer began and conducted the enquiry With a bias against the employees and in favour of the appellant and whether his conclusions suffer from the vice that they are not supported by any evidence and can be characterized as perverse.

(2.) THE present proceedings began with two applications made by the two eployees under S.33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). By their applications, the two employees alleged that they had been dismissed from service by the appellant in contravention of the provisions of S.33 of the Act. It appears that on 7 March 1960 orders of discharge simpliciter were served by the appellant on the two employees who will be called the two respondents hereafter. The two respondents pleaded that these orders of discharge really amounted to their dismissal and, since, according to them, S. 33 had been contravened, the said orders ought to be set aside. The industrial tribunal which heard these complaints has upheld the respondents case and has directed the appellant to reinstate the respondents and give them consequential reliefs. It is against this order that the present appeals have been brought before us by the appellant by special leave.

(3.) THE first question which we have to decide is whether the tribunal was justified in holding that Sri Chadha has a bias in favour of the appellant, and so, was incompetent to hold the enquiry. It appears that Sri Chadha is sometimes engaged by the appellant as a lawyer in industrial matters and the respondents' case was that he had been entrusted with the work of holding such enquiries on four or five occasions. It is on these grounds that the tribunal has held that Sri Chadha was not competent to hold the present enquiry.