RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the order dated 6th March, 2000 of the Industrial Tribunal holding the domestic / departmental inquiry conducted prior to the dismissal of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 workmen to be legally invalid and vitiated. After holding so, the Industrial Tribunal gave liberty to the petitioner to prove the charges against the workmen before the Industrial Tribunal.

2. The petitioner however, instead of proving the charge of misconduct before the Industrial Tribunal, filed this writ petition, notice whereof was issued to the respondent workmen. Subsequently, vide order dated 7th July, 2000 Rule was issued in the petition and the operation of the order aforesaid impugned in this writ petition was stayed. The said interim order was, on 11th January, 2002, made absolute till the disposal of the writ petition. Resultantly the further proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal on the reference “Whether the dismissal of services of Shri B.S. Rawat, Ramvir, Shankar Lal, Ramphool and Mukesh Shakun, is illegal and / or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?” remain held up.

3. On 2nd September, 2002 the counsel for the petitioner sought time to check up whether the witnesses necessary to prove the charges against workmen before the Industrial Tribunal were still available to give testimony or not. The counsel for the petitioner on 30th September, 2002 informed the Court that none of the witnesses were so available. The counsels for the parties have been heard.

4. The Industrial Tribunal has held the domestic / departmental inquiry to be invalid and vitiated only on the ground of bias. One Shri Alok Bhasin was appointed by the petitioner as the inquiry officer. The respondent workmen raised an objection to his appointment as the inquiry officer on the ground that he had conducted about 50 inquiries on behalf of the petitioner against the workmen and had given findings in each of them in favour of the petitioner; that he had been appearing in conciliation proceedings before the authorities under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act and before Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals on behalf of the petitioner and is a regular consultant and advocate of the petitioner and thus could not be expected to act as an unbiased person and the workmen apprehended that they would not get fair treatment from him. Notwithstanding the said protest by the respondent workmen, the petitioner continued with the inquiry proceedings through the aforesaid Shri Alok Bhasin. 5. The Industrial Tribunal found that Shri Alok Bhasin, appearing as the witnesses before the Industrial Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner admitted in his cross-examination that he had been appearing for the petitioner before authorities under the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act on behalf of the petitioner and in a proceeding against some of the respondent workmen; that he had appeared as the representative of the petitioner in a meeting of Ministers of the Delhi Government; that in a span of 8 to 9 years he had conducted approximately 30 inquiries against the employees of the petitioner and in all these inquiries he had held the workmen guilty of the charges; that the inquiry proceedings were conducted in the Guest House of the petitioner; that the respondent workmen had during the inquiry proceedings also objected to his conducting the enquiry but he had overruled the said objection; that even in the instant case before the Industrial Tribunal he was representing the petitioner and had a signed letter of authority on behalf of the petitioner.

6. The Industrial Tribunal on a consideration of the circumstances found merit in the objections raised by the respondent workmen to the appointment of Shri Alok Bhasin as the inquiry officer. Placing reliance on Sh. N.K. Sareen Vs. Punjab National Bank (1994) LLR 676 laying down that an impartial en