JUDHISTIRO RAOLO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a workman under M/s. Jayashree Chemicals Limited from August, 1967, till 4th November, 1968, when his services were terminated. With effect from 9-8-1968, the workers had gone on strike following some disputes between the management and the workmen. On 29-8-1968, the petitioner, then working in the pump house, was charge-sheeted and was put under suspension. A domestic enquiry was undertaken. The enquiry was posted to 26-10-1968. An application was made by the petitioner and another co-workman requiring the secretary of the company to conduct the proceedings of enquiry in Oriya language as the workmen were not well versed in any other language. The enquiring officer passed the following order: Sarbashri Banamali Biswal, Judhistiro Raolo, N. C. Choudhury and S. L. Choudhury have appeared in the enquiry. Sri M. D. Mathai has, however, failed to appear in the enquiry. Sarbashri Judhistiro Riolo and Banamali Biswal stated at the beginning that the enquiry proceeding should be recorded in Oriya language only, otherwise they would not participate in the enquiry, Shri G. P. Jajoo, company's representative, who was also present submitted that he did not know Oriya and some of the management witnesses also did not know Oriya. However, he had no objection if the proceedings were conducted in Hindi which his witnesses were able to follow. However, I told the charge-sheeted workmen that I. am not well versed in Oriya and it would be difficult for me to record the proceedings in Oriya. I told them that they could examine themselves and cross examine the management witnesses in Hindi which language they understand and talk while talking with me. I also told them that I would explain to them in Hindi whatever is recorded in English. In the alternative I proposed that they could give their answers in Oriya and the statements of the management witnesses who did not know Oriya would be explained to them in Oriya and further they could cross-examine the management's witnesses in Oriya also. For this purpose, I assured them that I would engage one interpreter to help the proceedings to be conducted in a manner which will be convenient to the delinquents to follow. It was also assured to them by me that all my recordings in the enquiry will be interpreted and explained to the delinquents in Oriya by the interpreter whereafter the delinquents would be required 10 sign in the proceedings. But the delinquents refused to agree to my proposal and insisted that they did not want any interpreter and the enquiry had to be fully conducted in Oriya and in no other language ; so saying the delinquent workmen shri Banamali Biswal presented application (masked Ext. A) at 9. 30 A. M. already prepared and signed by them. Without having the patience to hear and appreciate what I say. these delinquents abruptly left the enquiry stating that they are not going to participate in the enquiry any further if I do not write the proceedings and conduct in Oriya. As 1 considered it to be unreasonable in face of my preparedness to conduct the enquiry in Hindi or to get these charge-sheeted workmen assisted by a suitable interpreter, 1 was left with no other alternative than to proceed ahead with the enquiry ex parte against these two delinquent workmen. However, Sarbashri S. L. Choudhury and N. C. Choudhury who are present in the enquiry wish to participate in the enquiry. The enquiry proceeded ex parte so far as the petitioner is concerned in the circumstances indicated above and ultimately on the findings of the domestic enquiry, termination from service followed. An industrial dispute was raised which came to be conciliated. The conciliation officer submitted a failure re-port to Government Ultimately, the appropriate Government by their order dated 3-1-1972 declined to refer the dispute for ajdudication by saying that the management had followed principles of natural justice while dismissing the delinquent. This order of the State Government is impugned in the present proceeding.

(2.) MR. Palit for the petitioner takes the stand that there was admittedly violation of natural justice as the enquiry was being con. ducted in a language not understood by the delinquent workmen and notwithstanding the fact that Oriya was the official language in the area, the management wanted the proceeding to be conducted either in Hindi or in English. A written request of the workman in the matter was turned down and enquiry was conducted. This enquiry, according to Mr. Palit, is contrary to the rules of natural justice and the conclusion of the State Government is, therefore, not sustainable in law. It is further contended that it was for the Tribunal to decide whether there had been want of natural justice to vitiate the domestic enquiry and it was not open to the State Government to reach a final conclusion on such an aspect of the matter.

(3.) IN separate counter-affidavits, the management as also the State Government have tried to justify their respective actions.