Advocates:
B.SEN, I.M.SHROFF, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL, V.J.Francis

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the duty of the Labour Court when a domestic inquiry is found to be violative of natural justice:

• When a domestic inquiry held by an employer is found by the Labour Court to be violative of the principles of natural justice, the Court must first decide this as a preliminary issue before considering the merits of the case. (!) (!)
• If the domestic inquiry is found defective, it is not the automatic function of the Labour Court to invite the employer suo motu to adduce evidence; rather, it is for the management to decide whether to avail itself of the opportunity to adduce evidence after the Court pronounces its decision on the preliminary issue. (!) (!)
• If the employer chooses not to adduce any evidence after being given the opportunity following the decision on the preliminary issue, it will not be permissible in any subsequent proceeding to raise a line issue regarding the merits. (!) (!)
• The Labour Court should not direct the immediate reinstatement of a dismissed employee once an inquiry is found defective without first giving the employer an opportunity to justify the order by adducing evidence, as doing so would lead to delay and duplication of proceedings. (!) (!)
• Parties cannot stall the final adjudication of the dispute by questioning the decision regarding the preliminary issue (validity of the inquiry) when the matter can be agitated even after the final award. (!) (!)
• The High Court is legitimate to refuse to intervene at the stage where the Labour Court decides the preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic inquiry. (!) (!)
• Previous precedents, such as State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain and Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, established that the management has the right to adduce independent evidence but must request an opportunity to do so before the proceedings are closed; otherwise, they cannot complain if the Tribunal does not provide it suo motu. (!) (!)
• The Supreme Court clarified that while the employer has the right to adduce evidence, the Tribunal is not duty-bound to provide this opportunity suo motu if the employer has not asked for it during the pendency of the proceedings. (!) (!)