Natural justice requires that employees be given a fair opportunity to present their defence in disciplinary inquiries, including the option to summon witnesses, but it is the employee's duty to express the desire to do so.

1. This petition at the instance of the Factory Manager of the Model Mills, Nagpur, challenges the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur setting aside the termination of the services of respondent No. 3 Wasudeo under Standing O.23 after holding a departmental enquiry. The order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was challenged in revision before respondent No. 1, the State Industrial Court, at the instance of the petitioner but that authority has refused to interfere with the order of the Labour Commissioner.

2. Respondent No. 3 Wasudeo was employed as a Folder in the Folding Department of the Mills at Nagpur. On 22-12-1962 the respondent was absent from work after recess. There is no dispute about this fact. When the time clerk came to check the presence of respondent No. 3 after recess he found him absent and therefore marked that fact on the attendance card maintained for respondent No. 3 by marking him absent for half day. If a worker is present for the whole day, the attendance for the whole day is marked by letter P. and if he is absent for half day then a horizontal line is drawn under letter P below which the practice is to put figure 2 to show that the worker concerned was present and on duty only for half day. One Liladhar Vyas was the time clerk at the relevant time. Liladhar again happened to see the tickets of the workers of the department in which respondent No. 3 was working on 26-12-1962. At that check he found that in the time - card of respondent No. 3 absence of half day marked by him on 22-12-1962 had been obliterated by scratches. Liladhar made a report of this matter to the time keeper and a complaint was therefore made to the Factory Manager.

3. The Factory Manager therefore decided to hold an enquiry into the alleged misconduct of respondent No. 3 under Standing O.25 (d) of the Standing Orders governing respondent No. 3. A show cause notice was issued on 27-12-1962 charging respondent No. 3 with the following misconduct:
 
"On 22-12-1962 the Time Office had marked you absent for half a day. By obliterating the same you have shown that you were present on that day for the full day. By your above action you had tried to earn wages for the full day from the Company even though you were absent for half a day. You have thus acted dishonestly with the company. Previous to this the following punishments were imposed on you:
You are therefore, required to present yourself before the undersigned officer on Saturday the 29th December 1962 at 10 a. m. and show cause as to why action should not be taken against you for the misconducts alleged against you and file your written statement immediately. At the time of enquiry you will be given full opportunity to explain all matters. If you fail to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against you, or if in spite of the explanation it is established that you have committed the misconduct, you will be dismissed from the service of the Mills without any notice.
Sd/- K. D. Rathi,
Factory Manager".

4. This notice was served on respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner an enquiry was taken up by the Factory Manager on 29-12-1962. The Factory Manager proceeded to record the statement of respondent No. 3 on that date and this is what respondent No. 3 stated :
"As mentioned in the show cause notice dated 27-12-1962 served on me, I have accidentally obliterated 1/2 day's absence of 22-12-1962 and this happened on 25-12-62 while I was mending pencil with a knife, I have not obliterated 1/2 day's absence with a view to get more wages from the company for half day. I should be pardoned for the accidental mistake committed by me".
Below this statement appears the signature of respondent No. 3 as well as the Factory Manager and the statement also bears the date 29-12-1962.

5. Thereafter, on 31-12-1962 Liladhar who was examined by the Factory Manager stated that he had marked half day's absence of respondent No. 3 on 22-12-1962 on his card but on 26-12-196