V. S. DESHPANDE, J.

( 1 ) THE application of the petitioner employer for approval of the dismissal of the respondents employees under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was rejected by the Additional Industrial Tribunal by the impugned order dated 16-1-1971. The Tribunal held that the disciplinary enquiry which had been held by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the employer into the alleged misconduct of the employees was vitiated on the following grounds, namely:-

(1) The chargesheet dated 30th May 1967 given by the employer to the employees was extremely vague; (2) The allegations made by the employer against the employees did not constitute misconductunder the Central Rules (meaning thereby perhaps the model Standing Orders (No. 14) in Schedule I of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946) and under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 (section 30) or the Rules framed thereunder (Rule 13 ). (3) The Secretary of the Union of the employees, not being an employee of the petitioner, was not allowed to defend the employees in the disciplinary proceeding. (4) The last date of hearing was fixed on 25-12-1967 which was a public holiday though not a holiday for the petitioner s establishment. (5) Witnesses in the employment of the petitioner should have been summoned by the Enquiry Officer as requested by the employees. But he refused to do so.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition, the employer complains that the impugned order is illegal and further that even assuming that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by any contravention of the rules of natural justice, the Tribunal was bound to hold an enquiry itself and give the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence therein to make good for any lapses during the disciplinary enquiry.

( 3 ) IN argument, the only ground on which the impugned order was assailed was that it discloses errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Two questions, therefore, arise for decision, namely:-

(1) Whether the impugned order discloses any error of law apparent on the face of the record; and (2) Whether the Tribunal was bound to hold an enquiry into the misconduct of the employees giving opportunity to the employer and the employees to adduce fresh evidence even if it is assumed that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the disciplinary enquiry had been vitiated. QUESTION No. 1 Shri Anil Gupta for the respondents employees argued firstly that the Tribunal did not commit any error of law and secondly thateven if it did so, they were not apparent on the face of the record. Let us examine each of the reasons given by the Tribunal for holding the disciplinary enquiry to be invalid to determine whether any of these reasons contained an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

( 4 ) THE first reason was that the chargesheet given to the employees by the employer was extremely vague. The chargesheet has been reproduced by the Tribunal in the impugned order and is, therefore, a part not only of the record but of the impugned order itself which has to be examined by this Court when the relief sought is in the nature of certiorari. The requirement of natural justice is that a person accused of misconduct must be informed of the nature ot the case against him so that he may defend himself against the accusation.

( 5 ) THIS is the essence of the rule. There are no statutory rules which govern the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer of the employer against the employees. It was a proceeding governed entirely by the general rules of fairness anjustice called the rules of natural justice. The question whether a charge is clear or vague is not theoretical. It is relative. The test of its sufficiency is that the employees understood it. It is not to be judged in the abstract. The test is not whether the Tribunal or a third person could understand the basis of the allegations contained therein. The test is whether in the context of the previous happen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document