Where no domestic enquiry is held or the enquiry is defective, an industrial adjudicator must grant the employer an opportunity to adduce evidence to justify a dismissal. Prematurely closing evidence during incomplete cross-examination violates natural justice and warrants setting aside the impugned award.

Judgment :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred on the ground that the impugned Award dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Learned Judge, 3rd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, Kolkata in Case No. 03/2021 has been passed in gross violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice, specifically the audi alteram partem rule, inasmuch as the Tribunal peremptorily closed the evidence of the parties before cross-examination of the petitioner's witness OPW-1 could be completed.

2. The petitioner relies upon the judgments and the settled legal framework laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Management, (1973) 1 SCC 813, and reiterated in State of Uttarakhand v. Sureshwati , (2021) 3 SCC 108, which mandates that where no domestic enquiry has been held prior to dismissal, the employer is entitled to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time and the Tribunal must determine justifiability of the dismissal on the basis of such evidence.

3. The petitioner further states that the workman/respondent No.2 herein examined himself as PW-1. His examination-in-chief was recorded on 08.06.2022 and 22.06.2022. Petitioner the Company examined Manas Kumar Banerjee, its Personnel Manager, as OPW-1. The examination-in-chief of OPW-1 was recorded on 11.09.2024 and 23.09.2024.

4. The cross-examination of OPW-1 had commenced but was not completed. Despite the petitioner's bona fide requests for time to produce OPW-1 for completion of his cross-examination and to place all relevant documents on record, the Learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 20.11.2024, peremptorily rejected the petitioner's prayer for adjournment and unilaterally closed the evidence of both parties. The petitioner's further application for adjournment was similarly rejected by a detailed order dated 20.12.2024. The Petitioner was thereby deprived of the opportunity to complete the cross-examination of its own witness OPW-1, and to produce additional evidence such as the attendance register and other relevant documents, which had been specifically called for by the Tribunal itself vide Order No.27 dated 08.09.2023 and Order No. 32 dated 12.03.2024.

5. Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Management of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. and others, and State of Uttarakhand v. Sureshwati , since no domestic enquiry had been held prior to dismissal, the Petitioner was entitled to lead evidence before the Tribunal to justify the dismissal, and duly availed of that opportunity.

6. Mr. Majumder further states that in deciding Issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal held, inter alia, that the overall evidence of the petitioner was found to be weak and insufficient to prove the charges against the respondent No. 2, and thus decided the said issue in favour of the respondent No. 2 even though the said reply against the show cause far from being a defence, further corroborates the charges against the respondent No. 2 and demonstrates a continuation of his misconduct in an even more audacious form. This conduct - threatening further coercive action in response to a legitimate disciplinary notice is a most serious aggravation of the original misconduct and bears directly on the nature of the respondent No. 2's conduct, the appropriateness of the penalty of dismissal, and the absence of any basis for a finding of victimisation. The Tribunal's complete failure to consider and evalua