The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to provide crucial evidence to an employee during an enquiry deprives the employee of natural justice, rendering the enquiry unfair. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the chain of events leading to a dispute to determine the territorial jurisdiction of a Court.

Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 10th September, 2013 passed by Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh to the extent of paragraph-11 thereof, wherein it has been held by the said authority that the enquiry against the petitioner has been conducted in tune with the principles of natural justice.

2. The matter has reached to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh in terms of the reference made to it at the instance of the petitioner, which reference has arisen out of Central Government Notification dated 1st February, 2011. The Central Government referred the dispute, which had arisen between the petitioner and J&K Bank Ltd. to the tribunal for its adjudication. The reference is taken note of:-

"Whether the action of the management of J&K Bank Limited in terminating the services of Sri Bashir Ahmad Khan, S/O Sri Noor Mohd. Khan w.e.f. 15.01.2008 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is entitled to?"

3. The petitioner was working as Cashier-cum-Clerk in J&K Bank. He remained posted at Branch Office Fruit Complex Srinagar of the J&K Bank w.e.f. 23rd June, 1996 to 1st May, 1997 in the capacity of Cashier-cum-clerk. He was transferred from the said branch to Hari Singh High Street Branch of J&K Bank Srinagar on 1st May, 1997. It was alleged that a fictitious insertion in SB Account No. 2204/23, in the name of Hafiz Ali Baba was made and thereafter fraudulently the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was raised to Rs. 7,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,79,025/- was withdrawn by presentation of cheque during the period 19th May, 1997 to 24th May, 1997. FIR No. 167/97, was registered at concerned Police Station. The J&K Bank initiated in-house enquiry also. After the enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from services. 1st appeal against the dismissal of services also suffered dismissal and ultimately he raised dispute which, on failure of Conciliation Proceedings, was referred to the Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Chandigarh, by the Central Government.

4. This Court on 22nd November, 2013 directed the Respondents 2 not to proceed in the matter till next date before the Bench. On 4th September, 2014, the petition was admitted to hearing and it was provided that interim direction will continue till final disposal of the petition, which otherwise, would mean that the proceedings by now are not concluded.

5. The petitioner, at paragraph-5, has specifically pleaded that the Respondent No. 3 which is t he bank authority did not provide copies of FSL report, notwithstanding this fact that he had filed application for same. The copy of FSL report was sought by the petitioner to project his defense about his innocence.

6. It is the case of petitioner that respondent-Bank itself had referred the matter to FSL authorities and the report sent by them proved his innocence. It is further case of the petitioner that these documents are of fundamental importance so far as the enquiry conducted is concerned. It is one such reason which is projected to say that the enquiry has not been conducted in fair, just and proper manner.

7. The respondent-Bank, in its Reply Affidavit has stated that the Bank while conducting enquiry did not rely upon FSL report and final order was never based upon the same. Therefore, providing of copy thereof to the petitioner was of no consequences.

8. The respondent-Bank initiated a departmental enquiry and had referred the matter to FSL. It being a fact, the bank was duty bound to provide copy of FSL report to the petitioner. Whether bank relied upon the FSL report or not, in passing the dismissal order, is inconsequential because the petitioner has been deprived by the act of the respondent-Bank to defend himself in the enquiry. The enquiry in these circumstances has not been conducted properly and fairly, moreso, when assertion of the petitioner that the FSL report proved him innocent, has not been denied by the bank.

9. For th