IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the power of the tribunal to regulate its own procedure and the principle that technical and procedural lapses should not hinder substantial justice.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 14.09.2011 passed in I.A.No.84 of 2006 in L.C.I.D No.146 of 2006 on the file of respondent No.2 Labour Court as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and without jurisdiction.

2. Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. V. Umadevi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1 The petitioner was appointed as Generator Operator in respondent No.1 establishment on 11.01.1982 and he was suspended on 29.12.1998 pending enquiry. Respondent No.1 issued charge sheet dated 12.06.1999 with the following charges.

I. that the applicant has demanded illegal gratification ranging from Rs. 50/- to 100/- per tank lorry for every unload and loading.

II. demanded Rs.500/- for every tank lorry in every month for several years.

III. on the report of operation audit of Nizamabad Depot it is revealed that you have colluded with Sri. Rama Krishna, Senior Operation Officer of Nizamabad Depot as well as Balasumiah (field) in unloading /directing tank Lorries with an intention in serving illegal gratification from PCVO's (Private Contract Vehicle Operation).

iv. the above would reveals that you have scent respect to the interest of Company rules and therefore charged under the following clauses extract them from the charges;

3.2 The petitioner submitted his explanation to the above charges and being not satisfied with the same, respondent No.1 appointed an enquiry officer to conduct enquiry and the enquiry officer after conducting bonafide enquiry, submitted the enquiry report. Respondent company issued notice calling explanation from the petitioner by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report as to why the punishment of dismissal cannot be imposed against him, after receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from services by its order dated 05.11.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised the dispute invoking the provisions of Section 2 (A)-2 of the ID Act, 1947.

3.3 In the said I.D, the petitioner raised objection about the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent No.1 Company stating that respondent No.1 appointed one Sri V. Rajagopalan, Advocate as a enquiry officer who is an outsider of the respondent Company. Appointing outsider as enquiry officer is against the standing order as there is no provision to appoint an outsider as enquiry officer and further contended that apart from that, M/s. Gopalan and Company is the Advocates Firm, which is looking after the matters of Respondent company and thus his appointment as an enquiry officer is against the law and there was every likelihood of the bias against the employees. The petitioner further contended that the enquiry officer conducted enquiry in a biased manner and also stated that one Sri C.J.Vijayan appointed as Prosecuting officer was examined as M.W.1, thus his evidence is not sustainable under law because he was part of the investigation team. Thus, the entire enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer vitiated and further contended that prosecuting officer as well as enquiry officer who were Tamil speaking persons conducted enquiry which is nothing but arbitrary because enquiry should have been conducted by the persons who were well-versed with the regional language. As the petitioner was not conversant either with Tamil or with English he had to face much hardship. He further submits that the enquiry officer has prepared the report based on a hasty evidence. In the said I.D. petitioner raised objection that the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent No.1 is not valid under law and requested the Court to decide the issue in respect of validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent No.1 Company as a preliminary issue.

3.4 Respondent No.1 filed counter contending that during the course of enquiry the enquir