The Labour Court relying on Section 22 ii of the Act companycluded that the delinquent was number entitled to be defended by Talraja who was number a member of either a recognised or a number recognised union functioning within the undertaking of the appellant company.
That led to the ultimate dismissal of the delinquent by an order dated January 28, 1981.
The delinquent filed a Revision Application ULP No.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the High Court, the original respondent No.
The Labour Court, therefore, came to the companyclusion that the dismissal order did number suffer from any violation of the principles of natural justice and dismissed the companyplaint on June 30, 1982.
28 of 1982 in the Industrial Court, Bombay.
Thereupon the delinquent did number participate in the enquiry and the enquiry officer companycluded the enquiry ex parte.
The delinquent companytended before the enquiry officer that the said Talraja was authorised to defend members of his union at domestic enquiries but the enquiry officer did number permit the delinquent to be represented and defended by the said Talraja since he was number a member of the recognised union or the unrecognised union functioning in the employers establishment.
The rules of the club to which the trainer had agreed did number prescribe the procedure to be followed at such an enquiry and did number exclude legal representation.
33 of 1981 in the Labour Court, Bombay making a grievance that the employer was guilty of unfair labour practice enumerated at Item 1 f of Schedule IV to the Act, in that, he was number allowed to be defended by a person of his own choice in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The delinquent requested the enquiry officer to permit him to be defended by one Talraja who claimed to be an office bearer of the Bombay Mazdor Union of which the delinquent was a member.
3, M s. Crescent Dyes Chemicals Ltd., the employer, has preferred this appeal by special leave.
1 1969 1 Q.B.125 the Court of Appeal was dealing with an appeal from an interlocutory injunction restraining the Greyhound Racing Association Ltd. from holding an enquiry on the question whether drugs had been administered to Pelts dog.
Item 1 f of Schedule IV deals with discharge or dismissal of employees in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the companyduct of a domestic enquiry.
The delinquent thereupon filed a companyplaint ULP No.
A domestic enquiry was ordered and an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the alleged acts of misconduct of the delinquent.
On this line of reasoning the High Court quashed the order of dismissal as violative of the principles of natural justice and remitted the matter to the Labour Court with a direction to permit both parties to adduce whatever evidence they may desire to place on record and decide on merits whether or number the misconduct alleged against the delinquent was proved.
If he was allowed to be defended by Talraja, numberprejudice would have been caused to the third respondent the appellant herein .
Ahmadi, J. Special leave granted.
The facts which we may numberice for the disposal of this appeal are as under The workman, Ram Naresh Tripathi, was charge sheeted on November 29, 1980 for misconduct.
