The main legal point established in the judgment is that a domestic enquiry must comply with the principles of natural justice and standing orders, including providing the employee with an opportunity to explain the charges before the enquiry. The interpretation of standing orders should align with the principles of natural justice and the specific requirements of the standing orders.

Per Rama Jois, J.

1. Whether a domestic enquiry held by the management which is valid in all respects is invalid on the ground that before holding the enquiry an opportunity of answering the charges should be given to the delinquent-employee is the question that arises for consideration in this case.

2. The petitioner is the Motor Industries Co. Ltd., an industrial establishment within the meaning of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Management"). The 1st respondent was an employee of the petitioner-management. A charge memo dated 10-5-1974 was served on the petitioner. In the said charge memo certain alleged acts of the 1st respondent were set out and it was stated that if those charges are proved the same amounts to wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of superiors and also absence without permission from the appointed place of work and acts subversive of discipline and neglect of work. It was further stated that the above act amounts to misconduct under the company's Standing Orders 22(1), 22(18), 22(13) and 22(15). The 1st respondent was informed that an enquiry will be held by an enquiry officer appointed for the purpose on 16-5-1974 at 9 a.m. On 17-6-1974 another charge memo was served on the 1st respondent. In the said charge memo a few more acts of the 1st respondent, which according to the management, amounted to misconduct in terms of the company's Standing Orders 22(16), 22(6), 22(18), 22(4) and 22(14) were set out and the 1st respondent was informed that an enquiry will be held by an enquiry officer appointed for the purpose on 27-6-1974. The enquiry officer held the enquiry in respect of the two charge memos in accordance with the standing orders. He recorded a finding of guilt on both the charges in the two enquiries held against the 1st respondent. The finding in respect of the charges contained in the first memo was given on 21-7-1974 (Exhibit E). The finding on the charges contained in the second memo was given on 5-8-1974 (Exhibit F). The management accepted the findings recorded by the enquiry officer on the charges mentioned in both the memos against the 1st respondent and passed an order dated 17-9-1974 (Exhibit H) dismissing the 1st respondent from service. Hereafter the State Government in exercise of its power under clause (c) of sub-s. (1) of S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") referred the dispute, namely, whether the management was justified in terminating the services of the 1st respondent-employee with effect from 17-9-1974, for adjudication by the Labour Court at Bangalore.

3. Before the Labour Court, the 1st respondent filed his written statement under S. 2A of the Act setting out his case as to why the order of dismissal is illegal and praying for passing of an award setting aside the order of dismissal dated 17-9-1974 passed by the management against him and for reinstatement and other consequential benefits. The same is produced as Ext. K along with the writ petition. The management filed their counter-statement (Exhibit L) before the Labour Court. The validity of domestic enquiry on which the dismissal order against the 1st respondent was passed by the management was taken up as a preliminary issue. By an order dated 9-8-1977 (Exhibit M), the Labour Court, Bangalore, held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and answered the issue in favour of the 1st respondent and directed the management to adduce evidence in support of the charges before the Labour Court.

4. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was invalid on the ground that as before holding the enquiry, the written explanation of the 1st respondent was not called for, on the charges levelled against him, the domestic enquiry was in violation of the principles of natural justice and also the standing orders. The relevant portions of the order of the Labour Court on th