An enquiry conducted by an employer against its workmen must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the employer must provide the workmen with a fair chance to hear the evidence against them and to cross-examine the witnesses.

Judgement

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : By this appeal filed with the special leave of this Court, by the Meenglas Tea Estate against its Workmen, the Company seeks to challenge an award dated April 3, 1961, pronounced by the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The order of reference was made by the Government West Bengal as far back as October 29, 1957, in respect of the dismissal of 44 workmen. The issue which was referred was as follows:

"Whether the dismissal of the workmen mentioned in the attached list is justified? What relief by way of reinstatement and/or compensation are they entitled to?"

2. From November 5, 1957, to August 17, 1960 this reference remained pending before the First Labour Court. It was then transferred to the Seventh Industrial Tribunal and the latter made the impugned award on April 3, 1961. By the time the award was made two of the workmen (Nos. 12 and 37) had died and four had been re-employed (Nos. 31, 33, 34 and 35). One of the workmen (No. 22) was not found to be a workman at all. The Tribunal held that the orders of dismissal of fourteen workmen were justified though retrospective effect could not be given to the orders. The Company was ordered to reinstate the remaining workmen and to pay them compensation in some cases (but not all) amounting to three months wages. In the present appeal the Company seeks to challenge the award regarding 13 of those workmen who have been ordered to be reinstated. Of these workmen the cases of three fall to be considered separately and those of the remaining ten can be considered together. We shall now give the facts from which the reference arose.

3. The appellant Meenglas Tea Estate in Jalpaipuri District of West Bengal is owned by Duncan Brothers Ltd. The workers belong to the Zilla Chabagan Workers Union, Malbazar, District Jalpaiguri. On January 18, 1956, there was an ugly incident in which a group of workmen assaulted the Manager, Mr. Marshall and his two Assistant Managers Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dhawan. This happened one morning in a section of the tea gardens where about two hundred workmen had surrounded Mr. Nichols and were making a violent demonstration. First Mr. Dhawan and soon after Mr. Marshall arrived on the scene and the workmen surrounded them also. In the assault that followed these three officers were wounded -Mr. Marshall seriously. A criminal case was started against some of the rioters but we are not concerned with it. The Company also started proceedings against some workmen. It first issued a notice of suspension which was to take effect from February 6, 1956, and then served charge-sheets on a large number of workmen charging them with participation in the riot. The Workmen replied denying their complicity. The Company then held enquiries and ordered the dismissal of a number of workmen with effect form January 18, 1956. A sample order of dismissal is exhibited as annexure F in the case. In the enquiry before the Tribunal the Union admitted the incident though it said that it was caused by provocation on the part of the Management. The Union, however, denied that any of the workmen who were charged was concerned in the affray pointing out that none of these workmen was Prosecuted by the police. The enquiry was held by Mr. Marshall and Mr. Nichols and the record of the proceedings is marked Exhibits 17 and 18 series. That record was produced before us by the appellant for our perusal. It was admitted before us that there was no further record of evidence for the Company as none was recorded. Exhibits 17 and 18 series are the answers of the workmen to the charges against them and such replies as they gave to questions put to them in cross-examination.

4. The Tribunal held that the enquiry was vitiated because it was not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. It is contended that this conclusion was erroneous. But we have no doubt about its correctness. The enquiry consisted of putting questions to each workman in turn. No witn