SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 1068

BRIJESH KUMAR, MAITHLI SHARAN
INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LTD. – Appellant
Versus
DEVI SHANKAR KUMAR SHUKLA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
KRISHNA CHANDRA, R.P.Mehrotra

BRIJESH KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) A short legal question involved in this Special Appeal is as to whether in a domestic enquiry in an industrial dispute, an outsider could be appointed as Enquiry Officer or not. The learned single Judge, by judgment and order dated September 29, 1995 held that in view of the Standing order 16 (2) (Kha), an outsider could not be appointed an Enquiry Officer. Hence, the proceedings were vitialcd. The appellant-establishment, Indian Telephone Industries. Rac-Bareli. has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

( 3 ) IT appears that the respondent, as an employee of the establishment, was charged with some misconduct. An Advocate was appointed to conduct the domestic enquiry into the charges against the petitioner-respondent. The petitioner- respondent, on the basis of the enquiry report, was awarded punishment. He challenged the punishment and one of the grounds pressed before the learned Single Judge was that an outsider could not be appointed an Enquiry Officer in the teeth of the Standing Orders 16 (2) (Kha ). The learned Single Judge fol














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top