LAWS(BOM)-1997-11-31

AIR INDIA LIMITED Vs. MAHESH LALLA

Decided On November 18, 1997
AIR INDIA LIMITED Appellant
V/S
MAHESH LALLA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners have impugned Part-I of the Award of the Industrial Tribunal which has held that the domestic inquiry conducted was against the principles of natural justice.

(2.) THE Tribunal in so arriving at the conclusion based its order on three reasons viz. (a) that the workman was denied the right to be represented by a lawyer; (b) that the Committee which was Enquiry Committee had practically filled up the lacuna in the evidence after the Management witnesses had examined themselves; and (c) on the ground that non-supply of the enquiry report before coming to a conclusion about punishment to be imposed.

(3.) THE Tribunal has held that the Enquiry Report should have been given before the Disciplinary Authority arrived at the tentative or prima facie conclusion and the punishment he proposed to impose. It is now settled law that wherever the Enquiry Officer is distinct from the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority is bound to make available to the delinquent employee the enquiry report. THE purpose behind it is that this constitutes vital material on which the Disciplinary Authority would apply his mind. Merely because the Disciplinary Authority on receiving the report arrives at a prima facie conclusion and forwards the report alongwith the prima facie conclusion to the delinquent workman would not mean that the Disciplinary Authority has already concluded and/or pre-determined and/or made up its mind about the punishment. In fact when the Disciplinary Authority prima facie discloses its mind, the delinquent employee can always from the report of the Enquiry Officer point out to the Disciplinary Authority that the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is not sustainable as it is perverse and/or conclusions arrived at could not have been arrived at based on the material on record and/or that the documents which are on record have not been considered in arriving at the conclusions arrived at. In view of this, the mere fact that Enquiry Report was forwarded to the delinquent employee alongwith the prima facie conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and the proposed punishment, would not vitiate the enquiry. THE third contention on behalf of the delinquent employee-Petitioner has also to be rejected.