An employer is entitled to an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Labour Court to justify its action, even if no enquiry has been held or if the enquiry held by it is found to be defective.

1. - The petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Rajasthan dated June 29, 1972 and learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Judge of the Labour Court misdirected himself on two matters, namely, as to whether the enquiry proceedings were fair and proper opportunity was afforded to the workman concerned to defend himself in the said enquiry proceedings and also on the question whether the management should have been afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Labour Court in order to prove the misconduct complained of by it and the failure on the part of the Learned Judge of the Labour Court to allow the employer an opportunity to adduce evidence in this respect before it has been vitiated the award.

2. The circumstances which have given rise to the filing of the present writ petition briefly are that the respondent No. 2 Shri K.C. Pareek (hereinafter referred to as 'Pareek') was employed as a clerk in the Accounts department at the Jaipur Divisional Office of the petitioner, M/s. Alembic Chemical Works Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). On January 29, 1971. Pareek is alleged to have reached his office a few minutes late and he was asked to sign the attendance register and note down the time of his arrival, but he refused to do so. This was followed by some exchange of words between Pareek and the Divisional Manager and other officials of the Company. The company there upon served a show cause notice upon Pareek on February 13, 1971. Pareek submitted an explanation and denied the charges, but his explanation was found to be unsatisfactory by the company and an enquiry in the respect of the charges was ordered. As a result of the enquiry, the charges were held proved against Pareek and the Company decided to dismiss Pareek from service.

3. As Pareek was a protected workman, the Company submitted an application before the Labour Court, Rajasthan under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act for permission to dismiss Pareek from service on the charge of misconduct. Before the Labour Court it was contended on behalf of Pareek that the enquiry proceedings were not fair & he was not given full & reasonable opportunity to defend himself at the enquiry. His case was that he was late by two minutes only and that at a meeting of the staff and the management of the company held earlier it was decided that if any member of the staff came late by not more than five minutes, he would not be required to make the time of his arrival in the attendance register, meaning thereby that he would not be considered to have reached late on duty. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Company was not fair and was bad in law and that the workman concerned was taking active part in the legitimate activities of the Trade Union, which were unpleasent to the management of the company and, therefore, a way was found out by the company to throw Pareek out of service. A request was made before the Labour Court on behalf of the Company that if the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer were found to be defective or perverse in any manner, the management of the company should be allowed to lead fresh evidence before the Labour Court in order to prove the misconduct of Pareek. However, the Labour Court refused the aforesaid request made on behalf of the management of the company and rejected the application of the Company for permission to remove Pareek from the service of the company.

4. One of the submission advanced on behalf of Pareek before the labour Court in respect of the fairness of the enquiry was that he was not allowed to be represented by Shri R.C. Bhatia, Secretary, All India Alembic Employees Federation, who was also working as a clerk in the employment of the Company at its New Delhi office, Sub-clause (4) of clause 23 of the Standing Orders of the company was referred to in this connection, which runs as under:-

"4. A clerk against whom