The refusal of the Management to allow a workman to be represented by an office bearer of a union of which he is a member, in a domestic enquiry, is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) THE question involved in this writ petition,filed by the Management, namely, M/s. Delhi Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. underarticles 226/227 of the Constitution, falls in a very narrow compass, namely,as to whether the Industrial. Tribunal, Delhi committed any error or overstepped its jurisdiction by dismissing the application of the petitioner filedunder Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter REFERRED TO toas the Act), by order dated 19. 2. 90.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this controversy are that Shri A. N. Tripathi,respodents. No. 1, was employed as a Boiler Operator with the petitioner company, and that some time during March 1982, certain charters of demandswere raised by the workmen of the Company through the Trade Union ofwhich respondent No. 1 was also a member, wherein a settlement was arrived at on 10. 6. 82 between the management and the workmen with the stipulation that the said agreement would remain binding on the parties for aperiod of three years with effect from 1. 1. 82. The allegation was thatrespondent No. 1, as a workman, persisted in his illegal activities of causingobstruction in the smooth functioning of the petitioner company, even afterthis agreement, and would incite the workers who were willing to work toresort to sit in or go slow or other mode of striking work, and would alsotry to sabotage the boiler which was integral part of the manufacturing unitof the company, and that because of this. successive charge sheets wereserved on him during the months of January, February and March 1983; thefirst charge sheet being dated 10/12 183. second being dated 14/17. 2. 83 andthe third dated 1. 3. 83. After respondent No. 1 replied to all the charges,which were not found satisfactory by the Management, a decision was takento hold a detailed enquiry and respondent No. 1 informed accordingly. Thereare allegations that even thereafter a total strike took place in the factory ofthe petitioner, in which respondent No. 1 was in the forefront, terrorisingand intimidating the workers, willing to join the work.

( 3 ) EVENTUALLY an enquiry was instituted by appointing Shri Jagmohansharma. Advocate as the Enquiry Officer, to enquire into all the threecharges, as noted above, and the first hearing was fixed on 12. 6. 83, whichfact was duly intimated to the workman. He participated in the proceedingson that date, as also on the subsequent dates, namely, 27. 6. 83, 30. 6. 83, 2. 7. 83and 9. 7. 83 when the proceedings were adjourned to 12. 7. 83, on which daterespondent No. 1 allegedly absented, and the evidence brought by themanagement could not be examined. The Enquiry Officer is stated to haveadjourned the proceedings to 16. 7. 83 and respondent No. 1 duly informedthereof, but he remained absent, whereupon the Enquiry Officer ordered theproceedings to be taken ex parte. It is alleged that after this order waspassed, a letter was received at the gate on 16. 7. 83 in which respondent No. 1 had stated that since his request to allow him to be represented by Shrir. N. Roy, as representative, had been declined by the Enquiry Officer, hewould not participate in the proceedings,

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, this R. N. Roy was not an employeeof the petitioner company nor a member of the Union. recognised by themanagement, but claimed himself to be President of the Mercantile Employees Association, and thus he was not competent to represent respondentno. 1 in the domestic enquiry. The enquiry proceedings were, however, heldon 23. 7. 83, 30. 7. 83, 5. 8. 83 and 12. 8,83, when Management s evidence wasrecorded, and after conclusion, a detailed report was given by the Enquiryofficer on 31. 8. 83, holding respondent No. 1 to be guilty of most of thecharges levelled against him.

( 5 ) THE Management thereafter took a decision in the light of thereport of the Enquiry Officer that respondent No. 1 be dismissed from serviceon account of having committed various acts of misconduct, which order