M.L. SHRIMAL, J.—M/s Podar Spinning Mills, Jaipur (hereinafter called the petitioner) is an industrial establishment within the meaning of the provisions embodied in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be referred to hereinafter as the Act). Respondent No. 2, Nizamuddin, son of Shri Sabudin, was an employee of the petitioner. A charge-sheet, dated March 17, 1976, was served upon the respondent No.2. The reply sent by him was received by the Management on March 19, 1976. In the opinion of the Management the reply furnished by the respondent No.2 was not satisfactory. Accordingly a notice, intimating that an enquiry would be conducted in the matter was issued to non-petitioner No. 2 on March 20, 1976. It is alleged that though this notice had beed served personally on the non-petitioner No. 2, he failed to appear on the due date, fixed for the purpose of enquiry.

2. The enquiry officer directed the Management to give one more opportunity to the workman in the interest of justice and the enquiry proceedings were post-ported to April 21, 1976. A fresh notice was issued on March 22, 1976, to the non-petitioner No.2, intimating the time, date and place of enquiry. This notice was sent through the peon of the concern, Sanwar Mal. The notice could not be served personalty on non-petitioner No. 2 as he was not available at his residence. On April 21, 1976, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of Sanwar Mal, but instead of proceeding ex-parte in the matter he directed the Management to effect the service of the fresh notices by way of its publication in a daily news-paper having wide circulation in the locality in which the respondent No. 2 was last known to have been actually residing. The notice was published in Dainik Navjyoti, dated 22.4.76, whereby respondent No. 2 was purported to have been informed that an enquiry would be held by the Enquiry Officer on April 26, 1976.

3. Respondent No. 2, however, did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. The said Officer thereafter held enquiry in respect of the charges. He recorded finding of guilt against the respondent No.2. The Management accepted the finding, recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passed an order, dated May 5, 1976, dismissing the respondent No.2 from service. Thereafter the State Govern-ment, in exercise of its power conferred under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957, referred the dispute, namely, whether the Management, Podar Spinning Mills, was justified in terminating the service of the workman Nizamuddin, son of Sabuddin; if not, to what relief the workman was entitled to the Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for adjudication. The non-petitioner No. 2 filed his claim, setting forth as to how the order of his dismissal was illegal and prayed for an award setting aside the order of dismissal, passed by the Management against him and for his reinstatement and other consequential benefits. The Validity of the domestic enquiry on which the dismissal order against the respondent No.2 was based by the Management was also challenged One of the grounds of challenge was that service of the notice prior to the enquiry had not been properly effected on the workman. The Management also submitted a reply, wherein it was mentioned inter alia that a preliminary finding be given with respect to the fairness of the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court i.e. respondent No 1, reached the conclusion that sufficient opportunity had not been given to the respondent No. 2 to defend himself. This finding was arrived at on the grounds That:

4. (i) The original peon-book was not produced by the Management and as such there was nothing on record to suggest that the notice had actually been served; (ii) the evidence regarding evading of service of notice by the respondent No. 2 was not convincing; (iii) no standing order was shown to suggest that the notice could be served by way of publication in a newspaper; and (iv) even otherwise a mere publication

Click Here to Read the rest of this document