The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of principles of natural justice in the enquiry proceedings was not established, and that an employee not willing to participate in the enquiry would be doing so at his own risk and estopped from raising any grievance of non-compliance of principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

These present writ petitions are directed against the preliminary awards in I.D.No.51 of 2010, dated 01.06.2016 and 09.09.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Coimbatore, holding that the enquiry conducted by the petitioner/management was not fair and proper.

2. The admitted fact remains that the enquiry proceedings were conducted on 07.03.2009, 20.03.2009 and 27.03.2009. On 27.03.2009, the second respondent was set ex-parte and a enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The employee has submitted his objections. After considering the enquiry report as well as explanation submitted by the second respondent, he was dismissed from service. Against which, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.51 of 2010 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. The Labour Court has framed the following three issues,

(i) whether the second respondent is a workman or not?,

(ii) whether the enquiry conducted is fair and proper? and

(iii) whether the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer can be accepted or not?.

3. Insofar as the finding on issue No.1 is concerned, there is no dispute as to the finding that the second respondent is a workman.

4. Insofar as the 2nd and 3rd issues are concerned, the Labour Court proceeded to hold the enquiry is improper and the enquiry report cannot be accepted on five grounds,

(i) The officer, who issued show cause notice himself acted as a Presenting Officer which is violative of principles of natural justice.

(ii) Even though, names of certain companies who made complaints were mentioned in the enquiry notice, the complaints made by those companies were not enclosed along with show cause notice.

(iii) The copy of the Standing Orders was not furnished to the employee till the completion of enquiry proceedings.

(iv) The enquiry proceedings were not furnished to the employee then and there.

(v) The request made by the employee vide Exhibit M46 was not at all considered by the Enquiry Officer and a enquiry report was submitted without discussing any of those issues raised by the second respondent. On these grounds, the enquiry was held to be improper.

4. I have heard submissions of both sides.

5. Insofar as the issue No.1 is concerned, the officer, who issued a show cause notice acted as a Presenting Officer and deposed evidence and marked documents on the side of the management. The documents marked as exhibits on the side of the management, were all signed by very same person. Hence, the Labour Court has found that procedure followed in enquiry is in violation of Principles of natural justice.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the well settled principle of law is that the prosecutor shall not be a judge. A person who is initiating the disciplinary action or issuing a notice for initiation of disciplinary proceedings cannot be prevented from presenting the document. There is no embargo in law in respect of a person who issued show cause notice to act as a Presenting Officer. As long as, after opportunity is given to the workman and principles of natural justice is followed in providing all the required information, it cannot be said there was any irregularity, as alleged by the Court below. In view of the same, I am of the opinion, the finding that the person issued show cause notice should not have acted as a Presenting Officer and it violates Principles of natural justice is mis-founded and unsustainable.

7. Insofar as non-furnishing of the complaints given by certain companies mentioned in the show cause notice is concerned, a reading of show cause notice itself clearly says that certain complaints were received by the company and based on the same, charges were framed.

8. Further, the materials placed before this Court go to show that the documents was sought for by the second respondent were furnished to him and he was allowed to peruse the documents, which includes Standing Orders. This fact was not disputed by the second respondent. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the documents were no