VIJAY PAL SINGH Vs. D P ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 20.5.1996 whereby the Industrial Tribunal held that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was valid and proper and in accordance of principles of natural justice. There was no perversity in the findings and allowed the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order on the ground that the Tribunal did not consider that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of defence assistant despite the fact that Enquiry Officer, appointed by the respondent, was an Advocate, well versed in law. The co-workers of the petitioner, working in the respondent's organization, were not ready to act as defence assistant, out of fear of victimization. The petitioner wanted that he should be provided one Mr. K.K. Shukla as defence assistant, but request was declined by the Enquiry Officer. Mr. K.K. Shukla was the General Secretary of the Union to which the petitioner belonged. The enquiry was, therefore, vitiated and not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The enquiry against the petitioner was initiated for misconduct of violence, threatening, intimidation etc for which a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner. When the notice of the enquiry was sent to the petitioner, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Enquiry Officer that he be provided Mr. K.K. Shukla as the defence assistance. The Enquiry Officer replied him that his services were governed by Certified Standing Orders and as per the Certified Standing Orders, he had a right to take any co-worker as his defence assistant. He cannot demand any outsider as the defence assistant. Since Mr. K.K. Shukla was an outsider he could not be allowed as defence assistant. After this intimation, the petitioner stopped appearing in the enquiry and did not participate in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted and witnesses were recorded. The Enquiry Officer, gave his findings, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges.