An enquiry officer, including an advocate, appointed under the standing orders of a company has the power to give findings on the merits of the misconduct of the employees.

( 1 ). Leave granted.

( 2 ). This is an appeal against the judgment of the division bench of the Madras High court dated 9/1/1998 in Writ Appeal No. 433 of 1992. By that judgment the division bench dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment of the teamed Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5846 of 1989 dated 13/12/1991. The brief facts of the case are as follows : Respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal were employees of the appellant-company. On the ground of alleged misconduct, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The Manager of the Company had the enquiry conducted by an advocate who apart from recording the evidence also submitted the findings against the employees in relation to the charges. Based on the said enquiry report and findings,the Manager passed an order of dismissal on 24/11/1980. Reference was sought by Respondents 1 and 2 but the government made reference in respect of Respondents 1 to 3 to the Labour court. The Labour court by its award dated 28/4/19888 came to the conclusion that the reference made by the government of Tamil Nadu was not valid in regard to all the respondents inasmuch as the reference was not sponsored by the Union of the workmen. The Labour court, however, also gave alternative findings on the merits of the case and held that Respondents 1 and 2 were guilty of misconduct but not Respondent 3. It also held that Respondent 3 was not entitled to any relief inasmuch as he had not sought for a reference.

( 3 ). Aggrieved by the aforesaid award refusing relief to Respondents 1 to 3, the three workmen preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 8846 of 1989 in the High court. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Manager ought not to have referred the enquiry to an advocate and on that short ground the enquiry was vitiated. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Labour court to enable the parties to lead evidence with regard to the charges framed against them. The Labour court was also directed to decide the question of the wages payable to the workmen.

( 4 ). On an appeal by the Management, the division bench held that in view of the concession made by the counsel for the workmen, the reference of the enquiry to an advocate was valid. However, the division bench came to the conclusion that the advocate ought not to have given any findings on the merits in relation to the misconduct of the workmen. According to the division bench of the High court, the award was liable to be set aside on this ground. The division bench, however, did not alter the alternative direction given by the learned Single Judge for remand to the Labour court. It is against this order of the division bench that the Management has preferred this appeal in this court.

( 5 ). In this appeal, Shri R. Sundaravaradan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant- Management contended before us that once the counsel for the workmen conceded before the division bench of the High court that an advocate could be appointed as an enquiry officer, the said enquiry officer was entitled to give his findings in relation to the misconduct of the employees. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of this court in Khardah and Co. Ltd. v. Workmen 1963 2 LLJ 452 for the proposition that whenever an enquiry officer was appointed, he would be entitled to give findings on the charges framed against the workmen.

( 6 ). Learned counsel for the respondent, Shri R. Ravindra Bhat, however, contended that having regard to the language of the standing order in this case, the Manager was not permitted to appoint an advocate as an enquiry officer. Learned counsel also contended that in that event, the advocate could only record the evidence and could have given any findings on the merits as to misconduct of the workmen. Reliance was placed on the observations of this court in Workmen v. Buckingham and Carnatic Mills 1970 1 LLJ 26. Our attention wasalso drawn by the learned counsel on both the sides