9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refusal of permission to lead evidence in support of dismissal order by Industrial Tribunal. Analysis: The Supreme Court considered whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in denying the appellant company the opportunity to present evidence to support the dismissal of the respondent-employee. The appellant argued that even if the inquiry findings were deemed perverse, the employer should still be allowed to lead evidence. The respondent contended that the insertion of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act altered this position. However, the Court referred to the decision in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India v. Management, emphasizing that Section 11A empowers the Tribunal to assess evidence and decide on the justification of the employer's decision. The Court clarified that Section 11A did not abolish the employer's right to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, even if the initial inquiry was flawed or perverse. The respondent highlighted the proviso to Section 11A, which prohibits the introduction of fresh evidence during proceedings. However, the Court, citing Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., rejected this argument and upheld the employer's right to present additional evidence. The Court reiterated that a domestic inquiry tainted by procedural flaws or perversity does not provide a stronger basis for disciplinary action than no inquiry at all. It referenced various cases to emphasize the employer's recognized right to adduce evidence in disciplinary matters. The Court clarified the stage at which an employer should request permission to present additional evidence and emphasized the need for the Tribunal to allow such evidence before closing the proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, allowing both parties to present evidence before the Industrial Tribunal for rehearing the matter. To expedite the proceedings, the Court directed the completion of the tribunal proceedings within six months, with the appellant given two months to present further evidence and the workmen one month thereafter. The appeal was disposed of without costs.
|
