The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of natural justice cannot be stretched to a point where they render in-house proceedings unworkable, and the opportunity given to the person, if not utilized, cannot be claimed as a violation of principles of natural justice.

Subhash B. Adi , J.—These writ petitions are by the workman, questioning the order on preliminary issue dated 16.3.2012 in Serial Application No. 1/2010 in Ref. No. 243/2006, pending on the file of 1st Additional Labour Court, Bangalore.

Petitioner was subjected to a domestic enquiry on the charge of remaining unauthorized absent from 18.8.2005 to 29.10.2005 for 72 days. However, the Enquiry Officer records as absent till the date of enquiry. In this regard, a domestic enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority, based on the enquiry report issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner and petitioner gave his reply to the said second show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority having not satisfied with the explanation and by accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, held that the misconduct is proved and awarded major punishment of dismissal from service. Since the reference was pending under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity "the Act") in Reference No. 243/2006, the Corporation filed an application seeking permission to dismiss the petitioner from service as required under section 33(1)(a) of the Act. While hearing the said application, the Labour Court framed an issue "as to whether the enquiry is fair and proper". On the said issue, the Labour Court gave a finding that the enquiry is fair and proper. As against the said finding, this writ petition has been filed.

Petitioner appeared as party in person and contended that the petitioner had no opportunity before the Enquiry Officer, as such, the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer is violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently, enquiry is not fair and proper.

2. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the findings of the Labour Court on preliminary issue and submitted that, though he had remained absent between 11.3.2010 to 12.8.2010, however, when the enquiry was fixed on 15.4.2010, he could not be present on 15.4.2010, as his mother was suffering from illness and she died on 25.4.2010, as such, he could not appear before the Enquiry Officer on 15.4.2010. On 13.5,2010 also he could, not appear, as he was in his native place, hence, he had not received the notice. The notice of the enquiry fixed on 4.6.2010 was served on petitioner at 3.30 p.m. on the very date of enquiry, as such, by the time he went to the office of the Enquiry Officer, he had concluded enquiry at 11.00 a.m. itself. Before the next date of hearing, petitioner had sent request adjournment letter 17 days in advance to the next hearing date inter alia stating that, his lawyer at Delhi had requested him to go to Delhi, as such he was not in Bangalore between 6.7.2010 and 16.7.2010. Despite the advance adjournment letter, the Enquiry Officer closed the case on 15.7.2010 and posted the matter for written argument on 12.8.2010. On 12.8.2010 also, the petitioner could not be present, as he was issued with a warrant to appear before the Criminal Court in C.C. No. 3824 of 2009. Accordingly, he appeared before the Criminal Court. However, he had sent an adjournment letter to the Enquiry Officer through one of his friends, but the letter had reached the Enquiry Officer only at 16:05 hours, as the person, who had taken the request adjournment letter was not permitted inside the Regional Office, since the visiting time was only after 3 p.m. As such, the default on the part of the petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional but bona fide. Hence, the enquiry conducted without any opportunity to the workman is not fair and proper, as such, the same vitiates.

3. He relied on the judgment of this Court in the matter of The Management of M/s- Siruguppa Sugars and Chemicals ltd. v. C.S. Mohan an another, 2003 (98) FLR 421 (Kar.) and submitted that, even against the order on the preliminary issue, the writ is maintainable. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Co