JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21-3-2003, passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai, in Reference (I.D.A.) No. 253 of 1989 holding that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper.

3. Placing reliance in the decisions in the matter of (State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma)1, reported in 1996 S.C.C. (L S) 717, (State of Tamil Nadu v. Thiru K.V. Perumal others)2, reported in 1996(II) C.L.R. 519, (Hawaldar Singh v. Taigrania Metal Steel Industries others)3, reported in 2000(2) Bom.C.R. 171, (Ravindra Umesh Gokran others v. Guest Keen Williams Limited others)4, reported in 1992(2) Bom.C.R. 606, (Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ashokan K.K. another)5, reported in 1999(I) C.L.R. 2 and (K.M. Sarpabhushana Swamy v. Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bellary others)6, reported in 1997(I) C.L.R. 93, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, drawing attention to the Clause 25(4) of the Model Standing Orders applicable to the parties, has submitted that there was substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed in relation to the inquiry under the said Standing Orders and therefore the Labour Court erred in holding that the inquiry was not fair and proper. He has further submitted that there was no clear finding arrived at by the Labour Court before holding the inquiry to be not fair and proper, that there was either no opportunity given to the workmen to defend the charges or that there was no substantial compliance of the provisions regarding the procedure prescribed for conducting the inquiry. It was further sought to be contended that the workmen had never objected to the proceedings in the manner they were conducted, nor had raised objection regarding the recording of the inquiry in English while the same was being conducted in Marathi and all the papers relating to the inquiry were duly signed by the workmen which disclose waiver of right of the workmen to opt for a particular language in which the inquiry could have been conducted at their choice. Besides, the proceedings clearly disclose that before proceeding to record in English, while it was being conducted in Marathi, a clear intimation in that regard was given to the workmen by the Inquiry Officer and yet the workmen had never objected to the same. All these factors, disclose substantial compliance of the provisions of the Clause 25(4) of the Model Standing Orders and that therefore the finding arrived at by the Labour Court is contrary to the materials on record and therefore needs to be set aside. The learned Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no case made out for interference as the finding is clearly borne out from the records.

4. Undisputedly, the parties are governed by the Model Standing Orders and the Clause 25(4) thereof provides that a workman against whom an inquiry is proposed to be held shall be given a charge-sheet clearly setting out the circumstances appearing against him and requiring his explanation and he should be permitted to appear himself for defending him or should be permitted to be defended by a workman working in the same department as himself or by any office-bearer of a trade union of which he is a member and except for reasons to be recorded in writing by the officer holding the inquiry, the workman should be permitted to produce witness in his defence and cross-examine any witness on whose evidence the charge-rests. A concise summary of the evidence led on either side and the workman's plea should also be recorded. The said clause further provides that:---

"All the proceedings of the inquiry shall be conducted in English, Hindi or Marathi according to the choice of the workman concerned and the person defending him."

5. Apparently, it is referring to the above quoted clause that the Labour Court while holding the inquiry

Click Here to Read the rest of this document