IMPORTANT POINT
The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental, and its denial in disciplinary proceedings can lead to a violation of natural justice, justifying judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Four appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they are between the same employer and its dismissed employees and involves similar issues.

2. Appeals are at the behest of the dismissed workmen and directed against the order dated February 29, 2024 passed in writ petitions filed by them.

3. By the impugned orders, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy to the appellants/writ petitioners.

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, writ petitions are not maintainable notwithstanding the availability of a statutory alternative remedy particularly, when the writ petitioners are able to establish either breach of principles of natural justice or breach of fundamental rights or where the impugned order is arbitrary or wholly without jurisdiction.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants draws the attention of the Court to the disciplinary proceedings held as against his client. He submits that, in the enquiry proceedings on the first date, prosecution witnesses were examined. Request for adjournment was made on behalf of the appellants as defence assistance not available to the appellants in the enquiry proceedings. Defence assistance made available to the appellant raised objection with regard to the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses on the second date. The authorities did not decide on the objections on the second date of the enquiry but passed a detailed order subsequently rejecting the objections with regard to the cross-examination. Thereafter, in the enquiry, the appellants were not allowed to cross-examine any prosecution witnesses. In fact, in the second order, the enquiry authority stated that, no prosecution witnesses will be made available for cross-examination.

6. Learned advocate for the appellants relies upon (2023) 2 Supreme Court Cases 703 (M. P. Power Management Company Limited, Jabalpur versus Sky Power SouthEast Solar India Private Limited & others) in support of the contention that, notwithstanding availability of statutory alternative remedy, writ petition is maintainable when, the action of the State is arbitrary.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, the appellant was dismissed from service. Dismissal from service is a dispute within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Appellant should approach the appropriate authority under the Act of 1947 for redressal of the grievances, if any. He relies upon (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 108 (State of Uttarakhand & ors. Versus Smt. Sureshwati) in support of the contention that, even if there is no enquiry or enquiry is defective, the employer is entitled to lead evidence with regard to the same before the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Single Judge did not err in exercising discretion in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy to the appellant.

8. Relying upon (1996) 3 SCC 364 (State Bank of Patiala & ors. Versus S. K. Sharma) learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, complaint of non observation of procedure rule governing a disciplinary proceeding should be tested on the ground as to whether, non-compliance was in respect of the fundamental provisions or not. He draws attention of the Court to the various paragraphs of such report and submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellants were allowed to right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses twice. On the first date, they sought an adjournment on the ground of non-availability of the defence assistance which was allowed. On the second date, defence assistance although, being present did not proceed with the cross-examination. Thereafter, the enquiry officer decide not to direct the prosecution witnesses to be present in the enquiry for the purpose of cross-examination as no further request for cross-examination of the prosecu