The main legal point established is that bias of the Inquiry Officer and the violation of principles of natural justice can vitiate an inquiry, rendering it invalid.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. An inquiry was instituted against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 being B.S. Rawat, Rambir, Shankar Lal, Ram Phool and Mukesh Shakun on the allegations that they collected mob of employees outside the cafeteria, started shouting slogans, abusing the officers of the Hotel in most filthy language. Despite persuasion by the Security Manager they did not leave the cafeteria rather in a most rude and impertinent manner bluntly told that the workers would not leave the place unless the notice put up on the notice board pertaining to settlement dated October 26, 1991 was not withdrawn immediately and the settlement is not given effect. The above named officers along with 30-40 employees charged into the personal office of the Assistant Personnel Manager and demanded his explanation. Despite the Assistant Personnel Manager politely explaining the settlement entered into between Union being fair and just and nothing wrong noted therein the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and others abused him and stated that unless the notice of implementation of the settlement was withdrawn they would resort to violence, beat the employees who signed the declaration and accepted the same. Thereafter they gave highly inflammatory speeches to the workmen not to accept the settlement and threatened that person responsible for settlement would not be spared, would be beaten up, a lesson of their life would be taught to them and exhaulted the mob to resort to violence and beat the employees. At about 2.30 PM when Diwan Singh Rawat was explaining the implications of the settlement the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 snatched papers from him and attempted to assault him and thereafter in a procession went to the public area where the entry of the employees other than on duty was restricted. The respondents physically snatched papers from the female employees and hit them, forced their entry in the health club and threatened Ms. Rafia Azmat of dire consequences for having signed the settlement. Again at 4.00 PM they collected as a mob and made highly inflammatory speeches instigating to violence.

2. The inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer Shri Alok Bhasin who held the charges to be proved. An application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ‘the ID Act’) was filed before the Industrial Tribunal seeking approval for the dismissal of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The only ground taken by the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to challenge the inquiry was that the Inquiry Officer Alok Bhasin was biased and thus it was not a fair and proper inquiry. Vide the order dated March 06, 2000 the inquiry was held to be not legally valid and vitiated as the same was not conducted by an unbiased and impartial person. However, liberty was granted to the management to prove the charge against the workmen in Court.

3. Challenging the order dated March 06, 2000 the management filed a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed by the impugned order dated May 14, 2010. The learned Single Judge noted that a lawyer advising the employer on ways, means and procedure for terminating the services of an employee has to make a choice. Either he can remain such advisor and assist the client in successfully dismissing/punishing the employee or he has to let that the function be performed by another and in which case he is entitled to act as an Inquiry Officer, however, he cannot be both. In the present case the lawyer/legal advisor having performed both the functions, the inquiry was held to be a nullity or coram non judice. Hence the present appeal.

4. The case of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 before the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge was that the inquiry was conducted by Alok Bhasin who had conducted about fifty inquiries on behalf of the management against the workers in which he had given findings against the workers and in favour of the management. Alok Bhasin had also been appearing in conciliation proceedings before the authorities under the S