Judgement

GOSWAMI, J.:- The important question which has been pinpointed in this appeal by special leave is whether when a domestic inquiry held by an employer is found by the Labour Court as violative of the principles of natural justice there is any duty cast upon that Court to give an opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence afresh before it and whether failure to do so would vitiate its award.

2. In the present case the workman concerned was charged under the standing orders of the company for soliciting or collecting from the employees contributions for some purpose (allegedly purchase of microphone and loud-speaker arrangements) within the factory premises. The workman denied the charge of soliciting or collecting contribution within the factory premises (for purchase of microphone and loud-speaker) but added that "for this purpose I collect the said contribution outside the gate of the Company and this being so, such erroneous information supplied to you by someone should not be considered acceptable."

3. After holding the domestic inquiry in which some witnesses were examined by the employer and cross-examined by the workman and questioning the workman at the outset as well as at the end of the inquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted a very brief report to the Works Manager (hereinafter the Manager) holding that the charges were established. He did not give any detailed reasons for preferring the evidence of the six witnesses examined on behalf of the employer in the inquiry to the version of the workman. The Manager after perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer passed the order of dismissal without adverting to the evidence in the inquiry. This was particularly necessary since the Enquiry Officer had not given his reasons for his finding. Another incident occurred during the inquiry before the Manager. The workman after answering the first question of the Manager, when another question was put, abruptly left the inquiry without paying any heed to the order of the Manager, and to persuasion of other officers present asking him to wait. The dismissal order was passed the same afternoon.

4. In this appeal we will proceed on the assumption that the domestic inquiry was rightly found by the Labour Court to be defective. The Labour Court is aware of the legal position that it was competent in this case to take evidence of the parties and come to its own conclusion on the merits of the code and to decide whether the order of dismissal was justified or not to enable it to consider about the relief, if any, to be awarded to the workman. The Labour Court however, observed in its award that-

" in the instant case no evidence regarding merits is led by the Opponent before this Court .....,..,,.. It is open to the Labour Court to hold an enquiry itself. But the Opponent has chosen not to lead any evidence regarding the merits of the alleged misconduct. The natural result of vitiating the enquiry would therefore be to set aside the order of dismissal and to direct the reinstatement in service of the dismissed employee with all back wages."

5. The question posed at the commencement of our judgment is thus highlighted by the aforesaid observations of the Labour Court and we are required to consider whether after the Labour Court comes to a decision about the inquiry being defective it has any duty to announce its decision in that behalf to enable the employer an opportunity to adduce evidence before it to justify the order on the charge levelled against a workman. There is however, no doubt that when the employer chooses to do so the workman will have his opportunity to rebut such evidence. There is also no doubt, whatsoever that if the employer declines to avail of such an opportunity it will be open to the Labour Court to make an appropriate award and the employer will thereafter be able to make no grievance on that score.

6. In dealing with a case of dismissal of an industrial employee, this Court has time and again adverted to