Appeal by special leave from the award dated the 31st March, 1969 of the Labour Court, Kolhapur, Maharashtra in Reference IDA No.
The workman denied the charge of soliciting or companylecting companytribution within the factory premises for purchase of microphone and loudspeaker but added that for this purpose I companylect the said companytribution outside the gate of the Company and this being so, such erroneous information supplied to you by someone should number be companysidered acceptable.
After holding the domestic inquiry in which some witnesses were examined by the employer and cross examined by the workman and questioning the workman at the outset as well as at the end of the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer Submitted very brief report to the Works Manager hereinafter the Manager holding that the charges were established.
f 1968.
CIVlL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
The Manager after perusal of the report of the Enquiry officer passed the order of dismissal without adverting to the evidence in the inquiry.
He did number give any detailed reasons for preferring the evidence of the six witnesses examined on behalf of the employer in the inquiry to the version of the workman.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. The important question which has been pinpointed hl this appeal by special leave is whether when a domestic inquiry held by an employer is found by the labour companyrt as violative of the principles of natural justice there is any duty cast upon that companyrt to give an opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence afresh before it and whether to do so would vitiate its award.
The dismissal order was passed the same afternoon.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and V. J. Francis, for the respondent.
1716 of 1969.
