The Tribunal is not permitted to take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and is required to rely only on the materials on record.

LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.

1. The main point urged in these cases relates to the interpretation of section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The Government of Bihar made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal Bihar, under S. 10 of the Act about the justification and legality of the dismissal of one Chandradeep Singh, an employee of Rohtas Industries Ltd., the petitioner in C. W. J. C. 1779 of 1975; and the Tribunal by its award (annexure 1 to the writ application) held that the order of dismissal could not be upheld. The workman, however, was not reinstated and was allowed compensation. The petitioner-company has challenged the award in C. W. J. C. 1779 of 1975; and by the writ application in C. W. J. C. 1919 of 1975. the workman claims his reinstatement in service. Both the cases have been heard together.

3. The workman was served with a chargesheet on 10-8-1968 which is quoted in Para 11 of the award (Annexure 1). He was employed as a Dresser in the hospital run by the petitioner-company and on 1-6-1968 he, according to the charge, misbehaved with the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Jagdish Narain Singh. The chargesheet also stated that the workman had been intentionally misusing the medical facilities provided by the employer-company and a long list of medicines obtained by him was included. It indicated that several items of medicines were taken by him on a single day and this happened on many occasions. The workman was also suspended. After the submission of a show- cause, a domestic enquiry was held where several witnesses were examined on either side and. ultimately, in pursuance of the enquiry report, the workman was dismissed. In the meantime, a reference under the Act had been made to the Industrial Tribunal in regard to the legality of the suspension of the workman, which was registered before the Tribunal as Reference Case No. 81 of 1968. The petitioner-company also filed an application under S. 33 (1) (b) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal for permission to implement the dismissal order of the workman Chandradeep Singh and the application was registered as Misc. Case No. 102 of 1968. It was later appreciated that the application was misconceived and was not pursued and the Tribunal dropped the proceeding. It has been rightly stated on behalf of both the parties before us that the details of Reference Case No. 81 of 1968 relating to the order of suspension are also not relevant now.

4. In reference case No. 38 of 1972 giving rise to the present writ applications, the company filed an application on 27-2-1974 that Chandradeep Singh had been dismissed after duly holding a domestic enquiry and that this matter should be decided as a preliminary point.

5. Mr. Jai Narain, learned Counsel for the workman, in this Court, had appeared for him before the Tribunal also, and he had conceded that there was no defect in the domestic enquiry held by the petitioner company. In paragraph 9 of Annexure 1, the Tribunal has observed that since the amended provision of section 11-A of the Act had come into force on 15-12-1971. that is, before the reference was made by the State Government on 18-11-1972, it could reconsider the merits of the case. All the documents of the domestic enquiry had been produced by the company and the Tribunal was of the view that "it had to decide on the matters already on the record of the domestic enquiry in view of S. 11A". The documents which formed part of the records of the domestic enquiry were marked as exhibits to facilitate reference to them. Later, however, the Tribunal revised its view and held that it should take fresh evidence on the merits of the dispute and record its independent findings. Parties were accordingly directed and witnesses were examined thereafter.

6. Dr. J. N. Singh, the Chief Medical Officer, with whom the workman was alleged to have misbehaved was obviously an important witness, but he was not examined on behalf of the manageme