http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 10

PETITIONER:

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

DILIPKUMAR RAGHAVENDRANATH NADKARNI BAND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/11/1982

BENCH:

DESAI, D.A.

BENCH:

DESAI, D.A.

MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:

1983 AIR 109 1983 SCR (1) 828

1983 SCC (1) 124 1982 SCALE (2)1097

CITATOR INFO :

R 1983 SC 454 (5)

E&D 1985 SC1618 (9)

R 1987 SC2257 (15)

R 1991 SC 107 (239)

RF 1991 SC1221 (4)

ACT:

Departmental Proceedings-Domestic enquiry-Management

appointed Iegally trained officers as prosecuting officers-

Employee s request to be represented by a legal practitioner

rejected-whether violates principles of natural justice.

Natural justice-Employee denied assistance of Iegal

practitioner before domestic enquiry while management

engaged legally trained men as prosecuting officers-Whether

violates principles of natural justice.

HEADNOTE:

The time honoured and traditional approach in regard to

a domestic enquiry in industrial disputes is that it is a

managerial function which would be best left to the

management without the intervention of persons belonging to

the legal profession. This approach was based on the ground

that a domestic enquiry should not be unduly inhibited by

strict rules of evidence and procedural laws and that in the

informal atmosphere in which the enquiry is conducted the

delinquent would be able to defend himself. Whatever

justification there might have been in the past for holding

this view, the position today is altogether different.

Industrial establishments employ on their rolls an

impressive array of labour officers and legal advisors in

the garb of employees. These officers are appointed as

presenting and prosecuting officers for conducting the

management’s case in a domestic enquiry. The enquiry

officer, more often than not, is a man of the establishment

doning the robes of a judge. The enquiry is held in the

establishment’s office or part of it. It does not bear any

comparison to an adjudication by an impartial arbitrator or

a Court presided over by an unbiased judge. Witnesses are

generally employees of the management which orders the

enquiry. In short the scales are weighted in favour of the

management and against the workman. ;832 G-H, 834 E-F]

Secondly, even in a domestic enquiry there can be very

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 10

serious charges: an adverse verdict may so stigmatize a

workman that his future, both in regard to his reputation as

well as his livelhood, might be put in jeopardy. [834 D]

The aphorism that "justice must not only be done but

must be seen to be done" is not a euphemism applicable to

courts alone; it should apply with equal vigour to all those

responsible for fairplay in action. A quasi-judicial

tribunal cannot view the situation with equanimity where

there is inequality of representation. [835 G]

829

Brooke Bond lndia (Pvt) Ltd. v. Subba Raman (S) and

Anr. [1961] 2 Labour Law Journal 417 referred to.

Dunlop Rubber Co. v. Workman [1965] 2 SCR 139, referred

to.

Pet. v. Greyhound Racing Association Ltd. [1968] 2 All

E. R. 545, referred to.

M. H. Hoscot v. State of Maharastra [1978] 3 SCC 544,

referred to Facts:

In a chargesheet issued against the delinquent employee

(respondent) for the misconduct alleged against him the

management appointed its legal officer and his assistant as

presenting officers. At the same time it rejected the

employee’s request to engage a legal practitioner for his

defence. Meanwhile, as the enquiry was in progress, a

regulation came into force enabling a delinquent employee to

engage a legal practitioner if the presenting officer

appointed by the disciplinary authority