Saran Motors Private, Limited, New Delhi Vs. Vishwanath and Another
Both these owners were customers of the appellant. Having seen that the respondents had absented themselves on false pretexts and had really taken private work, charge-sheets were served on them and the same were followed by a domestic enquiry. At the enquiry, evidence was led both by the appellant and the respondents. Sri Chadha who held the enquiry found against the reepondents and accepted the appellants case, on receiving his report, the appellant passed the impugned orders of discharge against the two respondents.Before industrial tribunal it was urged by the respondents that the enquiry held by Sri Chadha was unfair and his conclusions were perverse. The appellant denied these allegations and contended that the enquiry was fair and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the correctness or propriety of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The tribunal has accepted the respondents contention and has made the awards which have given rise to these two appeals.4. The first question which we have to decide is whether the tribunal was justified in holding that Sri Chadha has a bias in favour of the appellant, and so, was incompetent to hold the enquiry. It appears that Sri Chadha is sometimes engaged by the appellant as a lawyer in industrial matters and the respondents case was that he had been entrusted with the work of holding such enquiries on four or five occasions. It is on these grounds that the tribunal has held that Sri Chadha was not competent to hold the present enquiry.5. In our opinion, this view is completely erroneous and cannot be sustained. We have repeatedly pointed out that domestic enquiries in industrial relations must be fairly conducted and whenever we are satisfied that any enquiry was not fairly conducted or its conclusions were not supported by evidence, we have unhesitatingly ignored the findings recorded at such an enquiry and held that the tribunals must deal with the merits of the dispute for themselves; but it is impossible to accept the argument that because a person is sometimes employed by the employer as a lawyer, he becomes incompetent to hold a domestic enquiry. It is well-known that enquiries of this type are generally conducted by the officers of the employer and in the absence of any special individual bias attributable to a particular officer, it has never been held that the enquiry is bad just because it is conducted by an officer of the employer. If that be so, it is obviously un-sound to take the view that a lawyer, who is not a paid officer of the employer, is incompetent to hold the enquiry, because he is the employers lawyer and is paid remuneration for holding the enquiry. Therefore, the first reason given by the trlbunal for ignoring the findings of the domestic enquiry must to reversed.The second conclusion set out in the award of the tribunal is that Sri Chadha adopted a double standard in appreciating the evidence. It appears that before Sri Chadha, the appellant examined four witnesses and the rospondents also led evidence. Amongst the witnesses examined by the respondents, were Dr. Thakur Das and Sardar Atma Singh. Sri Chadha has believed the evidence of the management witnesses and has discarded the testimony given by the respondents witnesses. The tribunal thought that because Sri Chadha has dealt in great detail with the evidence given on behalf of the respondents and has considered the managements evidence somewhat briefly that shows that his approach was perverse. This ground again is completely misconceived and has to be rejected. It may be that the tribunal itself may have been inclined to prefer the evidence led on behalf of the respondents; but that is no reason for holding that Sri Chadha was actuated by bias or that he adopted a double standard in dealing with oral evidence led before him. The criticism made by the tribunal against Sri Chadha on this count appears to us to be completely misconceived, and so, we must hold that the tribunal was in error in rejecting the findings of Sri Chadha on the ground that he had adopted a double standard in dealing with evidence adduced before him (?).6. The last point on which the tribunal has rested its conclusion that the enquiry was unfair and its conclusions can be ignored is based on the fact that Sri Chadha did not make notes of inspection. It appears that Sri chadha inspected the compound where the respondents were found working on 8 June 1959. No doubt, The respondents were not agreeable to this inspection but that cannot mean that Sri Chadha was not competent to inspect the spot if he thought it necessary and expedient to do so. It is true that Sri Chadha did not make any inspection notes but referred to the impression formed by him at the said inspection when he wrote his report. It may be that it would have been better if Sri Chadha had made the inspection notes soon after the inspection; but we do not see how Sri Chadhas failure to make inspection notes can invalidate the whole of the domestic enquiry. After all, the question which Sri Chadha had to decide was a simple question of fact : Did the appellant prove that the two respondents were found working within the compound of the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on a private job when they had taken leave from the appellants workshop ? On this issue the two rival contentions were supported by two sets of witnesses examined by the parties. Sri Chadha has believed the managements evidence and has rejected the testimony of the respondent witnesses. In such a case, we do not think it was open to the tribunal to consider the evidence for itself when it is plain that the domestic enquiry was fairly conducted, a reasonable opportunity was given to the respondents to prove their case and the conclusions recorded at the enquiry are supported by evidence which was believed by the enquiry officer.7.
1[ds]In our opinion, this view is completely erroneous and cannot be sustained. We have repeatedly pointed out that domestic enquiries in industrial relations must be fairly conducted and whenever we are satisfied that any enquiry was not fairly conducted or its conclusions were not supported by evidence, we have unhesitatingly ignored the findings recorded at such an enquiry and held that the tribunals must deal with the merits of the dispute for themselves; but it is impossible to accept the argument that because a person is sometimes employed by the employer as a lawyer, he becomes incompetent to hold a domestic enquiry. It isthat enquiries of this type are generally conducted by the officers of the employer and in the absence of any special individual bias attributable to a particular officer, it has never been held that the enquiry is bad just because it is conducted by an officer of the employer. If that be so, it is obviouslyto take the view that a lawyer, who is not a paid officer of the employer, is incompetent to hold the enquiry, because he is the employers lawyer and is paid remuneration for holding the enquiry. Therefore, the first reason given by the trlbunal for ignoring the findings of the domestic enquiry must to reversed.The second conclusion set out in the award of the tribunal is that Sri Chadha adopted a double standard in appreciating the evidence. It appears that before Sri Chadha, the appellant examined four witnesses and the rospondents also led evidence. Amongst the witnesses examined by the respondents, were Dr. Thakur Das and Sardar Atma Singh. Sri Chadha has believed the evidence of the management witnesses and has discarded the testimony given by the respondents witnesses. The tribunal thought that because Sri Chadha has dealt in great detail with the evidence given on behalf of the respondents and has considered the managements evidence somewhat briefly that shows that his approach was perverse. This ground again is completely misconceived and has to be rejected. It may be that the tribunal itself may have been inclined to prefer the evidence led on behalf of the respondents; but that is no reason for holding that Sri Chadha was actuated by bias or that he adopted a double standard in dealing with oral evidence led before him. The criticism made by the tribunal against Sri Chadha on this count appears to us to be completely misconceived, and so, we must hold that the tribunal was in error in rejecting the findings of Sri Chadha on the ground that he had adopted a double standard in dealing with evidence adduced before himlast point on which the tribunal has rested its conclusion that the enquiry was unfair and its conclusions can be ignored is based on the fact that Sri Chadha did not make notes of inspection. It appears that Sri chadha inspected the compound where the respondents were found working on 8 June 1959. No doubt, The respondents were not agreeable to this inspection but that cannot mean that Sri Chadha was not competent to inspect the spot if he thought it necessary and expedient to do so. It is true that Sri Chadha did not make any inspection notes but referred to the impression formed by him at the said inspection when he wrote his report. It may be that it would have been better if Sri Chadha had made the inspection notes soon after the inspection; but we do not see how Sri Chadhas failure to make inspection notes can invalidate the whole of the domestic enquiry. After all, the question which Sri Chadha had to decide was a simple question of fact : Did the appellant prove that the two respondents were found working within the compound of the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on a private job when they had taken leave from the appellants workshop ? On this issue the two rival contentions were supported by two sets of witnesses examined by the parties. Sri Chadha has believed the managements evidence and has rejected the testimony of the respondent witnesses. In such a case, we do not think it was open to the tribunal to consider the evidence for itself when it is plain that the domestic enquiry was fairly conducted, a reasonable opportunity was given to the respondents to prove their case and the conclusions recorded at the enquiry are supported by evidence which was believed by the enquiry officer.
### Instruction:
Determine the likely decision of the case (acceptance (1) or rejection (0)) and follow up with an explanation highlighting key sentences that support this prediction.

### Input:
Both these owners were customers of the appellant. Having seen that the respondents had absented themselves on false pretexts and had really taken private work, charge-sheets were served on them and the same were followed by a domestic enquiry. At the enquiry, evidence was led both by the appellant and the respondents. Sri Chadha who held the enquiry found against the reepondents and accepted the appellants case, on receiving his report, the appellant passed the impugned orders of discharge against the two respondents.Before industrial tribunal it was urged by the respondents that the enquiry held by Sri Chadha was unfair and his conclusions were perverse. The appellant denied these allegations and contended that the enquiry was fair and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the correctness or propriety of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The tribunal has accepted the respondents contention and has made the awards which have given rise to these two appeals.4. The first question which we have to decide is whether the tribunal was justified in holding that Sri Chadha has a bias in favour of the appellant, and so, was incompetent to hold the enquiry. It appears that Sri Chadha is sometimes engaged by the appellant as a lawyer in industrial matters and the respondents case was that he had been entrusted with the work of holding such enquiries on four or five occasions. It is on these grounds that the tribunal has held that Sri Chadha was not competent to hold the present enquiry.5. In our opinion, this view is completely erroneous and cannot be sustained. We have repeatedly pointed out that domestic enquiries in industrial relations must be fairly conducted and whenever we are satisfied that any enquiry was not fairly conducted or its conclusions were not supported by evidence, we have unhesitatingly ignored the findings recorded at such an enquiry and held that the tribunals must deal with the merits of the dispute for themselves; but it is impossible to accept the argument that because a person is sometimes employed by the employer as a lawyer, he becomes incompetent to hold a domestic enquiry. It is well-known that enquiries of this type are generally conducted by the officers of the employer and in the absence of any special individual bias attributable to a particular officer, it has never been held that the enquiry is bad just because it is conducted by an officer of the employer. If that be so, it is obviously un-sound to take the view that a lawyer, who is not a paid officer of the employer, is incompetent to hold the enquiry, because he is the employers lawyer and is paid remuneration for holding the enquiry. Therefore, the first reason given by the trlbunal for ignoring the findings of the domestic enquiry must to reversed.The second conclusion set out in the award of the tribunal is that Sri Chadha adopted a double standard in appreciating the evidence. It appears that before Sri Chadha, the appellant examined four witnesses and the rospondents also led evidence. Amongst the witnesses examined by the respondents, were Dr. Thakur Das and Sardar Atma Singh. Sri Chadha has believed the evidence of the management witnesses and has discarded the testimony given by the respondents witnesses. The tribunal thought that because Sri Chadha has dealt in great detail with the evidence given on behalf of the respondents and has considered the managements evidence somewhat briefly that shows that his approach was perverse. This ground again is completely misconceived and has to be rejected. It may be that the tribunal itself may have been inclined to prefer the evidence led on behalf of the respondents; but that is no reason for holding that Sri Chadha was actuated by bias or that he adopted a double standard in dealing with oral evidence led before him. The criticism made by the tribunal against Sri Chadha on this count appears to us to be completely misconceived, and so, we must hold that the tribunal was in error in rejecting the findings of Sri Chadha on the ground that he had adopted a double standard in dealing with evidence adduced before him (?).6. The last point on which the tribunal has rested its conclusion that the enquiry was unfair and its conclusions can be ignored is based on the fact that Sri Chadha did not make notes of inspection. It appears that Sri chadha inspected the compound where the respondents were found working on 8 June 1959. No doubt, The respondents were not agreeable to this inspection but that cannot mean that Sri Chadha was not competent to inspect the spot if he thought it necessary and expedient to do so. It is true that Sri Chadha did not make any inspection notes but referred to the impression formed by him at the said inspection when he wrote his report. It may be that it would have been better if Sri Chadha had made the inspection notes soon after the inspection; but we do not see how Sri Chadhas failure to make inspection notes can invalidate the whole of the domestic enquiry. After all, the question which Sri Chadha had to decide was a simple question of fact : Did the appellant prove that the two respondents were found working within the compound of the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on a private job when they had taken leave from the appellants workshop ? On this issue the two rival contentions were supported by two sets of witnesses examined by the parties. Sri Chadha has believed the managements evidence and has rejected the testimony of the respondent witnesses. In such a case, we do not think it was open to the tribunal to consider the evidence for itself when it is plain that the domestic enquiry was fairly conducted, a reasonable opportunity was given to the respondents to prove their case and the conclusions recorded at the enquiry are supported by evidence which was believed by the enquiry officer.7.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
In our opinion, this view is completely erroneous and cannot be sustained. We have repeatedly pointed out that domestic enquiries in industrial relations must be fairly conducted and whenever we are satisfied that any enquiry was not fairly conducted or its conclusions were not supported by evidence, we have unhesitatingly ignored the findings recorded at such an enquiry and held that the tribunals must deal with the merits of the dispute for themselves; but it is impossible to accept the argument that because a person is sometimes employed by the employer as a lawyer, he becomes incompetent to hold a domestic enquiry. It isthat enquiries of this type are generally conducted by the officers of the employer and in the absence of any special individual bias attributable to a particular officer, it has never been held that the enquiry is bad just because it is conducted by an officer of the employer. If that be so, it is obviouslyto take the view that a lawyer, who is not a paid officer of the employer, is incompetent to hold the enquiry, because he is the employers lawyer and is paid remuneration for holding the enquiry. Therefore, the first reason given by the trlbunal for ignoring the findings of the domestic enquiry must to reversed.The second conclusion set out in the award of the tribunal is that Sri Chadha adopted a double standard in appreciating the evidence. It appears that before Sri Chadha, the appellant examined four witnesses and the rospondents also led evidence. Amongst the witnesses examined by the respondents, were Dr. Thakur Das and Sardar Atma Singh. Sri Chadha has believed the evidence of the management witnesses and has discarded the testimony given by the respondents witnesses. The tribunal thought that because Sri Chadha has dealt in great detail with the evidence given on behalf of the respondents and has considered the managements evidence somewhat briefly that shows that his approach was perverse. This ground again is completely misconceived and has to be rejected. It may be that the tribunal itself may have been inclined to prefer the evidence led on behalf of the respondents; but that is no reason for holding that Sri Chadha was actuated by bias or that he adopted a double standard in dealing with oral evidence led before him. The criticism made by the tribunal against Sri Chadha on this count appears to us to be completely misconceived, and so, we must hold that the tribunal was in error in rejecting the findings of Sri Chadha on the ground that he had adopted a double standard in dealing with evidence adduced before himlast point on which the tribunal has rested its conclusion that the enquiry was unfair and its conclusions can be ignored is based on the fact that Sri Chadha did not make notes of inspection. It appears that Sri chadha inspected the compound where the respondents were found working on 8 June 1959. No doubt, The respondents were not agreeable to this inspection but that cannot mean that Sri Chadha was not competent to inspect the spot if he thought it necessary and expedient to do so. It is true that Sri Chadha did not make any inspection notes but referred to the impression formed by him at the said inspection when he wrote his report. It may be that it would have been better if Sri Chadha had made the inspection notes soon after the inspection; but we do not see how Sri Chadhas failure to make inspection notes can invalidate the whole of the domestic enquiry. After all, the question which Sri Chadha had to decide was a simple question of fact : Did the appellant prove that the two respondents were found working within the compound of the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on a private job when they had taken leave from the appellants workshop ? On this issue the two rival contentions were supported by two sets of witnesses examined by the parties. Sri Chadha has believed the managements evidence and has rejected the testimony of the respondent witnesses. In such a case, we do not think it was open to the tribunal to consider the evidence for itself when it is plain that the domestic enquiry was fairly conducted, a reasonable opportunity was given to the respondents to prove their case and the conclusions recorded at the enquiry are supported by evidence which was believed by the enquiry officer.
