HARYANA STATE Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved with the impugned award the petitioner Management has filed the present writ petition. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to lead evidence on merits after the domestic enquiry was held as vitiated. The brief facts of the case germane to the controversy raised are that the Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration, referred the dispute for its adjudication to the Tribunal as per the following terms:

(2.) The Issue Number (1) was treated as a preliminary issue and both the parties led their respective evidence before the Tribunal. The management petitioner had examined Sh. J.P.Snarma, Enquiry Officer while the respondent workman examined himself and filed an affidavit in evidence. At that very stage, the petitioner management had filed an application that they may be permitted to lead evidence on merits of the charge in the event of the enquiry held to be invalid or defective in any way. The Tribunal after having gone through the report of the enquiry officer and the evidence adduced by the respective parties came to the conclusion that there was serious violation of principles of natural justice as the delinquent officer/workman was not provided with any defence representative as well as he was not supplied copy of the report on the basis of which charges were framed against him. The Tribunal did not feel satisfied with the Memorandum dated September 21, 1984 in which it was mentioned that the delinquent official could have access to the official record if he so wished and held that such a course would not satisfy the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The Tribunal, therefore, held that the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report had been vitiated and consequently passed the award holding the termination of the respondent/workman as illegal, unjustified and consequently held that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.