RAM KISHAN SINGHAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Since short point is involved with the consent of the parties the matter is heard and decided at this stage.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details let me recapitulate the relevant facts which have led the petitioner to file the present writ petition. Petitioner is an employee in Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'University', for short). Around April, 1983 he filed statement of claim before the Labour Commissioner raising the dispute regarding crossing of efficiency bar. While this was pending, on 17th June, 1983 petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter on 29th October, 1984 charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and enquiry was held. Thereafter, Vice-Chancellor issued show cause notice on 6th January, 1986 and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer. After taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner, Vice-Chancellor passed order dated 30th May, 1986 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner; University filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before Industrial Tribunal No. Ill for approval of the aforesaid action taken by the University of Delhi against the petitioner thereby compulsorily retiring him from service w.e.f. 30th May, 1986. Petitioner filed written statement opposing the aforesaid application and inter alia submitted that the enquiry was not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice and no opportunity was given to him to adduce evidence in support of his defence. On the basis of pleadings the Industrial Tribunal framed the following issues: (a) Whether a proper and valid enquiry was held in accordance with the rules of nautural justice?

(3.) After recording the evidence and hearing the arguments learned Presiding Officer passed order dated 12th July, 1986 holding that enquiry held against the petitioner was in violation of principles of natural justice and petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to test the veracity of the material witness. Accordingly, issue framed by the Industrial Tribunal was decided in negative i.e. against the University. However, since University had made request that an opportunity be given to the University to adduce evidence in case enquiry is held to be defective, the Industrial Tribunal has given the opportunity to the University to substantiate the charges. Last para of the order dealing with this aspect reads as under: "While filing the application itself the University has/had made a request that an opportunity be given to adduce the evidence afresh on merits to substantiate the charges and justify the action taken against the workman. In view of this request having been already made by the management the applicant/ University of Delhi is being given an opportunity to adduce evidence afresh on merits to substantiate the charges and to justify the action taken against the employee before the very Tribunal. Fix 6.9.1986 for applicant evidence."