SIVARAJAN Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a dismissed workman, challenges Ext. P1 Award of the Labour Court, upholding an order dismissing petitioner from service. Petitioner, while working as a Blacksmith under second respondent, is alleged to have beaten up one Mohanan Pillai, Supervisor, under whom he was working. It would appear that the Supervisor allotted work to petitioner, but he refused to do it. When he was asked to do the work, it is said, petitioner assaulted the Supervisor, causing injuries on him. After a domestic enquiry, petitioner was dismissed from service. The Labour Court by Ext. P1 Award, affirmed the order of dismissal.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner challenges the Award as also the order of dismissal, mainly if not solely, on the ground that the Enquiry Officer acted as the Presenting Officer, by putting questions to witnesses. Thus he has acted, as Prosecutor and Judge according to counsel, and for this reason, the order of dismissal is vitiated. To sustain his contention, counsel invited my attention to the decision in Bharath Electronics Ltd. v. K. Kasi (ILR 1987 Kar. 366). In that case, the learned Judge took the view that, enquiry would be invalid if in the absence of a Presenting Officer, the enquiring authority played the role of Presenting Officer.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondents invited my attention to a line of decisions, taking the view that the Enquiry Officer putting questions, will not be violative of the principles of natural justice. In Mulchandani Electrical & Radio Industries v. The workmen ( AIR 1975 SC 2125 ) the Supreme Court took the view that the enquiring authority is entitled to question the witnesses, so long as the delinquent employee is permitted to cross examine the witnesses, and that this will not violate the enquiry or make it unfair. Thus, the role ascribed to the Enquiry Officer, will not taint the findings. In Workmen in Buckingham and Carnatic Mills, Madras v. Buckingham and Carnatic Mills, Madras ( 1970 (1) LLJ 26 ), the Supreme Court held that the Enquiry Officer-putting questions to witnesses in the absence of a Presenting Officer separately appointed, will not vitiate the enquiry. In Machinery Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. v. Pal (P. N.) and others ( 1963 (1) LLJ 131 ), the Calcutta High Court held that, charge of bias on the ground that the Enquiry Officer himself cross examined the witnesses cannot be sustained.