Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2685
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA
V. Sundararajan
Versus
The Additional General Manager (HR) Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. & Another
W.P.No.8392 of 2011 & M.P.No. 1 of 2011
Decided on : 10-06-2011
For the Petitioner:S.T. Varadarajulu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. Vijayshankar, Advocate.
The central legal point established is that when a person's reputation or livelihood is at stake in an enquiry, they have the right to be represented and assisted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Refusal to permit assistance in enquiry - Factories Act, 1948, Section 2(m); Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, Standing Order (4) (ba); Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot Vs. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 544; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & others (1983-I-LLJ-1)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of a nuclear power corporation, sought assistance of his choice from his trade union in an enquiry. The request was refused, leading to the filing of a Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to permit the petitioner to engage an Assistant of his choice in the enquiry was contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Refusal of assistance in enquiry, entitlement to representation in domestic enquiry, violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should be permitted to engage an Assistant from his own trade union in the enquiry, as per the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of, directing the completion of the enquiry within six months and instructing the petitioner to cooperate with the proceedings.
1. The petitioner-V.Sundararajan has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order bearing No.NPCIL/MAPS/31(2253)/2011, dated 05.01.2011 of the second respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to offer assistance of the choice of the petitioner in the enquiry.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Central Government has established an Atomic Power Station at Kalpakkam in 1976 for production of electricity. Since, it was coming under the control of the Department of Atomic Energy, the same came to be registered in the year 1986 as Nuclear Power Corporation under the Companies Act. Now, as there are about 2000 employees employed, it is a factory as per Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. He further submits that the petitioner was working as Helper 'D' ESL, Madras Atomic Power Station since 01.10.1972 and after putting more than 39 years of continuous service, he had retired on reaching the age of superannuation, on 01.05.2011. While he was in service, on 20.08.2010, the petitioner went to the house of one Venkataraman Office-in-Charge to grant leave for LTC. As his request was refused, the petitioner had explained to the Officer concerned that if LTC was not granted, it would be lapsed. On that basis, he made a further request to grant leave for LTC as he was on the verge of his retirement. Again, the Officer refused to grant leave. Subsequently, the petitioner returned home. But, thereafter he came to know that two false complaints were filed against him on 20.08.2010 and 21.08.2010, making an allegation that he entered the Office room of one Venkataraman, Office-in-Charge, situated at DAE Township Kalpakkam and abused him in Tamil and threatened to assault him with an umbrella. Subsequently, he was issued with a charge memo dated 02.09.2010 and an enquiry was ordered. At that point of time, the petitioner demanded for Tamil version of the charge memo. But that was not furnished to him till date. Again he had also sought for permission to engage an Assistant of his choice to help him in the said enquiry. Even that request was also turned down by the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent herein, on 05.01.2011.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the refusal of his request to engage an Assistant of his choice to help him in the enquiry, is totally running contrary to the principles of natural justice, for the reason that the petitioner is an uneducated person, as he has no knowledge to put forth his case before the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry and the charge being serious in nature, if his request for engaging an Assistant of his choice is given, the petitioner would be in a position to participate effectively to defend his case and refusal of his request to engage an Assistant of his choice would not only defeat the purpose for which the enquiry is called for but also would cause serious prejudice to him. On that basis, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Standing Order (4) (ba) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, to contend that the workman is entitled to appear in person or to be represented by an Office-bearer of a trade union of which he is a member. The refusal by the respondents to permit the petitioner to engage an Assistant of his choice is running contrary to their own Standing Order (4) (ba) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Further, he also relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director of BCG Vaccine Laboratory, Madras Vs. S.Pandian and others reported in 1996 II LLJ 30, wherein it has been held that there is nothing wrong in permitting an incumbent who is an uneducated to be aided by a legal practitioner in an enquiry. But in the present case, the petitioner is not asking for assistance or permission to engage the legal practi
