A labour court cannot interfere with the finding of a domestic enquiry unless and until it is satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice and consequential failure of justice or that the finding reached by the management is perverse on account of total lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

C.S. Nayudu, J.—In this civil rule the validity of the procedure followed by the presiding officer of the labour court in taking fresh evidence and deciding upon the case on its merits is called into question.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly noticed. The management, namely, the Eastern Assam Tea Company, Ltd., the petitioner herein, dismissed one Moneswar Dutta, opposite party 3 in this petition, who was working as a woman mohorer in the Balijan South Tea Estate under the petitioner. A charge was framed against Moneswar Dutta which stated that when the total quantity of the green leaves plucked by opposite party 3's daffa was re-weighed, a large discrepancy to the tune of 489-50 kilograms was found short against the figure shown by the opposite party 3 as representing the weight of the green leaves in question. This discrepancy indicated that the opposite party 3 had committed a grave misconduct in showing that the green leaves plucked leveled much more and payment had to Toe made on that weight than what actually it was. An explanation was called for from the opposite party 3 on this charge. Thereafter, the manager of the establishment", Sri J. P. Knight, held an enquiry and received and recorded evidence on the charge. This evidence was recorded in the presence of the opposite party 3 who was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which opportunity, however, he did not avail himself of. He was given an opportunity further to offer his explanation, if any, at the conclusion of the enquiry but he had co explanation to submit explaining his conduct In respect of the charge. He further did not want to cross-examine anybody even at that stage. On the conclusion of the proceedings, taking into account the fact that the opposite party 3 had no explanation to offer at the enquiry, the enquiring officer felt satisfied that the charge had been established and this is what he Said:

Dutta, in fact, had no explanation to submit at the enquiry. The present grave offence he had committed coupled with his paat warning for an offence of a similar nature and his complete disregard of the instructions given to him In respect of green-leaf weighment by the management had rendered him liable to Instant dismissal.

Thereafter, the manager served a notice on 28 November 1961 intimating opposite party 3 that the evidence available at the enquiry established his guilt; that the verbal explanations offered by him at the enquiry were found most unsatisfactory and that he was found guilty of gross misconduct and that accordingly he had been dismissed from the service of the company with effect from 28 November 1961. In that notice It was farther stated as follows:

The reason for your dismissal is that after due having of your case as prescribed by the standing orders, you have been found guilty of gross misconduct under the standing Order 10 (a)(2).

3. The question for consideration on the above premises is whether the domestic enquiry that was held In this case is vitiated by reason of the fact that principles of natural Justice have been violated or that the finding reached by the enquiring officer was perverse by reason of there being no evidence at all in support of it.

4. It is clear from what has been stated above that the ordinary principles of natural justice that should be followed oven in judicial or quasi-judicial enquiries have been followed In this case, in that the opposite party 3 had been served with a chargesheet, that he was given an opportunity to offer his explanation on the charge, that he was allowed to be present at the enquiry and the evidence of the witnesses was recorded in his presence, that he was given an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses, that at the end of taking evidence he was offered to make any submission he wished to make and an offer was also made to him for recalling any witness for the purposes of his cross-examination again. Having regard to the above, we are satisfied that the