A domestic inquiry cannot be deemed fair without proper evidentiary procedures, including witness examination and cross-examination, as per the principles outlined in the Industrial Disputes Act.

ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

Since common question of law and facts are involved in both petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties, both the matters taken up for final disposal and the same are being decided by this common order.

2. For convenience, the prayer mentioned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7758/2012 is taken into consideration.

3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court-

(I) Would be pleased to call for the record and after examining the same will be further pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 16.12.2011 and the judgment/award dated 20.12.2011 passed by the labour Court Ajmer in LCR no. 18/2008 (Parasram v. RSRTC) and consequently the statement of the claim moved by the respondents workmen may be allowed in terms prayedn for.

(ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may be granted.

(iii) cost of the petition may be quantified in favour of the petitioner."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that services of the petitioners-workmen (hereinafter referred to as 'workmen') were terminated in violation of mandate contained under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'). Counsel submitted that workmen assailed the aforesaid action of the respondents before the Labour Court by way of filing a claim petition. Counsel further submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 16.12.2011 the Labour Court wrongly came to the conclusion that domestic inquiry was found to be fair and proper. Counsel submitted that without there being any evidence available on record, the aforesaid order has been passed which is violation of provisions of Act of 1947. Counsel submitted that merely certain documents were exhibited with the claim petition and reply but the documents cannot be treated as proved unless both sides through examination and cross examination lead evidence in that regard and gets an opportunity to cross examine the respective witness. Counsel submitted that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and the matters requires to be remitted back to the Labour Court for passing a fresh order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the documents were available on record which were duly marked as exhibits and after perusing the aforesaid documents, the Labour Court recorded a finding that domestic inquiry against the workmen was fair and proper. Counsel submitted that no illegality has been caused by the Labour Court, hence interference of this Court is not warranted.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. This fact is not in a dispute that services of the workmen were terminated by the respondents and feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid act of the respondents, the workmen approached the Labour Court by way of filing a claim petition on the basis of reference made by the Government. Now the question which remains for consideration before this Court is whether the Labour Court can record a finding that domestic inquiry was fair and proper without recording the evidence of the respective parties and only on the basis of the documents produced by either side. It is settled proposition of law that mere exhibiting the documents on record is not suffice unless and until the parties along with the documents appeared in the witness box and other side gets an opportunity to cross-examine with those evidence with regard to authenticity or reliability of the documents but here in the instant case, the aforesaid procedure