9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of dismissal passed against the respondent-employee. By the impugned Judgment, the Bombay High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in refusing to give permission to the employer to lead evidence before the Tribunal in justification of the order of dismissal. 3. Mr. Pai, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that such permission has been refused by the Tribunal by indicating that although the enquiry was properly held, the finding in such enquiry was perverse and in such circumstances, no opportunity to lead evidences should be given. Such view according to Mr. Pai is not justified inasmuch as it has been held in Management of Ritz. Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1962)IILLJ498b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf of the workmen that the right of the employer to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, for the first time since recognised by this Court in its various earlier decisions, has been taken away by Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been accepted. It has been indicated in the said decision that there is no indication in Section 11A that such right has been abrogated. It has also been held that if the Intention of the legislature was to do away with such right which has been recognised over a long period of time as noticed in the decisions referred to earlier Section 11A would have been differently worded. This Court has observed that admittedly there are no express words to that effect and there is no indication that the Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any fresh evidence in relation to the water under consideration was not accepted by this Court by placing reliance on the reasonings indicated in the decision in Firestone Rubber Company case. 7. A domestic enquiry may be vitiated either for non-compliance of rules of natural justice or for perversity. Disciplinary Action taken on the basis of a vitiated enquiry does not stand on a better footing than a disciplinary action with no enquiry. The right of the employer to adduce evidence in both the situations is well-recognised. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1965) IILLJ162SC , State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain Delhi Clot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lead evidence in support of the impugned order of dismissal. Hence, denial of the opportunity to the employer to lead evidence before the Tribunal in support of the order of dismissal cannot be justified. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. It will be open to the parties to lead such evidence as they may deem proper before the Industrial Tribunal where the matter is to be re-heard. Since the proceeding is pending for a long, we direct that the proceeding before the tribunal should be completed as early as practicable, but not beyond six months from the date of communication of this order. In order to expedite the proceeding before the Tribunal we direct that the appellant B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
