( 1 ) THE Second respondent herein, a watchman in the appellant- company was dismissed from service on a charge of theft after tte holding of the domestic enquiry. The second respondent raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Guniur. The labour Court framed a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. For coming to that conclusion, the Labour Court gave thtee reasons: firstly, copies of the statements recorded by the Management from the witnesses who were examined by it at the domestic enquiry were not furnished to the claimant so as to enable him to cross-examine the witnesses. Secondly, the Labour Court held that the workman who was assisting the employee in the proceedings before the domestic enquiry was won over by the Management. Lastly, it held ihat when the stolen article was recovered, there was a panchanama and one of the mediatois of the panchauama routhu Naidu was not examined at the domestic enquiry. For all the above reasons, it held that the domestic enquiiy was not fair and proper and gave an oppsrtunity to the Management to adduce e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document