1971 (3) TMI 117 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the charges against the petitioner.
2. Fairness and impartiality of the domestic enquiry.
3. Presence and role of G. G. Naik during the enquiry.
4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under S. 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
5. Conduct of the enquiry officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Charges Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that the charges were vague and indefinite. The charges included allegations of intimidation, threats, and the use of obscene language without specific details. However, the Tribunal found that the petitioner had ample notice of the charges and understood them well enough to mount a defense. The Tribunal's conclusion was that the absence of specific details did not render the charges vague or indefinite. The petitioner's response to the charges, which included a complete denial and counter-allegations of mala fide intentions, indicated that he understood the charges.

2. Fairness and Impartiality of the Domestic Enquiry:
The petitioner alleged bias on the part of the enquiry officer, Gokhale, claiming that relevant questions were disallowed and irrelevant questions from the management were permitted. The Tribunal reviewed these claims and found that the questions disallowed were properly so. The enquiry officer had also overruled questions from the management, indicating no bias. The Tribunal held that the enquiry was conducted fairly and the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

3. Presence and Role of G. G. Naik During the Enquiry:
The petitioner contended that the presence of G. G. Naik, who acted as the complainant and prosecutor, intimidated his witnesses. The Tribunal found that G. G. Naik's presence was justified as he was the initial recipient of the complaint from K. G. Naik and had a right to lead evidence. The Tribunal noted that two witnesses for the petitioner did testify and their evidence did not show any intimidation from G. G. Naik's presence.

4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal Under S. 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act:
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on the misconduct rather than merely considering the application for dismissal. The Tribunal's detailed consideration of the evidence was in response to the petitioner's own arguments questioning the evidence of threats and intimidation. The Tribunal's findings were thus justified as they were invited by the petitioner's counsel.

5. Conduct of the Enquiry Officer:
The petitioner alleged that the enquiry officer allowed leading questions and was biased. The Tribunal reviewed the specific instances cited and found that the questions were not leading and were necessary for the enquiry. The Tribunal also noted that the enquiry officer had made a note to disregard certain evidence that could prejudice the petitioner. The Tribunal found no failure of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry officer.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the charges against the petitioner, finding them sufficiently clear and specific. The domestic enquiry was deemed fair and impartial, with no bias from the enquiry officer. The presence of G. G. Naik was justified and did not intimidate the petitioner's witnesses. The Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction under S. 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the conduct of the enquiry officer was found to be proper. The petition was dismissed with costs, affirming the Tribunal's decision to grant permission for the petitioner's dismissal.