Almost towards the end of the enquiry he was asked whether he would like to say anything and the 1st respondent requested to be allowed to admit his guilt and also requested the management to take a lenient view of his lapse and reinstate him and allow him to serve the companypany with all loyalty and sincerity.
This arguement was rejected on the ground that it was number mentioned in the chargesheet.
The Labour Court held that as the statement of the workman was recorded and he was asked to explain the charges leveled against him before all the prosecution evidence had been companypleted, it was a serious infirmity and to that extent the domestic enquiry was vitiated.
The Labour Court in particular stressed the fact that the 1st respondent number only sold the typewriter but also undertook to do service of the typewriter for one year, and it held that by selling a typewriter and undertaking to do service of that typewriter for one year the 1st respondent companyld be said to have engaged in work which was similar in nature to that of the companypany.
Thereafter an enquiry was held and witnesses examined.
The chargesheet mentioned that he had transacted the business in the name of his brother, that the machine actually belonged to him and that he had carried on negotiations and companycluded the transaction with the party mentioned.
In the result the award of the Labour Court was quashed.
A reference was made by the Madhya Pradesh Government to the Labour Court at Jabalpur.
The 1st respondent filed a petition before the High Court for quashing the award of the Labour Court.
Bht on the basis of the evidence of witnesses produced by the employer the Labour Court held that the charge against the workman was proved.
The 1st respondent denied the charge leveled against him and claimed that his brother had sold the typewriter and he had numberhing to do with it and that the sale of one second hand typewrite by his brother did number and cannot amount to carrying on businesses of selling typewriters, that even on the allegations there was numberbasis for charging him with misconduct under Clause 12A 29 of the Standing Orders.
The enquiry officer held that the charge against the 1st respondent was made out and the regional manager of the appellant companypany thereafter dismissed him.
On 23rd September, 1965 a chargesheet was served on him on the ground that he sold one second hand Godrej Standard typewriter to M s. Jabalpur Enterprises.
Alagiriswami , J. The 1st respondent was a mechanic in the appellant companypany.
He was, therefore, charged for grave and serious misconduct for the engaging himself in work similar in nature to that of the companypany under Clause 12A 29 of the companypanys Standing Orders.
