DECISION These are two appeals against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement of the respondents on their application made under sec--tion 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance. The appellant was, however, allowed to hold fresh inquiry against the respondents.
2. The respondents were in the employment of the appellant. They were charge-sheeted on 16th January, 1976 for causing wilful loss to the property of the mill and production in the course of their duty on 11th January, 1976 while working in 'C' shift. They failed to submit any explana--tion. An inquiry was ordered on. 21st January, 1976 and the respondents were directed to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 24th January, 1976. They, however, failed to appear before the inquiry Officer and instead sent applications for adjournments on the ground of their illness. The applications were rejected and ex parte inquiry was held. They were found guilty of the charge and after second show-cause notice they were dismissed from service by order dated 29th January, 1976.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, they served grievance notices and approached the Labour Court under section 24-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance.
4. The application were resisted and it was pleaded that the respondents were guilty of misconduct and they were dismissed from service after due inquiry and, therefore, their grievance against the dismissal was not entertalnable. A few other pleas were also taken.
5. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence, the learned Presiding Officer entertained the view that opportunity was not allowed to the respondents to contest the inquiry as their applications for adjournment were wrongly rejected by the Inquiry Officer. The other pleas raised on behalf of the appellant were also disallowed.
6. Aggrieved by this, the present appeals, had been filed. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am unable to confirm the order of re-instatement passed by the Labour Court. The learned Presiding officer clearly erred in reaching the conclusion that opportunity was not afforded to the respondents to participate in 'the inquiry and their applications for adjournment were wrongly rejected. Indeed, a party may seek an adjournment to enable it to prepare the defence, but the mere fact that the Inquiry Officer refused to adjourn the case would not vitiate the inquiry: The action of the Inquiry Officer has to be judged with reference to the circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. This was aptly stated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1964 PLC 810), as under: "The question whether by refusing adjournment, the Enquiry Officer denied a reasonable opportunity to a party would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Adjournments may be granted or refused in the discretion of the Enquiry Officer. Such discretion is to be judicially exercised bearing in mind that a party is not denied reasonable opportunity to present his case in the enquiry. If it appears that by refusing to adjourn the hearing at the instance of the charge. Sheeted workman, the Enquiry Officer failed to give the said workman a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence, that might, in a proper case, be considered to introduce an element of infirmity in the enquiry."
Applying the aforesaid principle it is plain enough that the respondents not only had ample opportunity to prepare their case in order to defend the inquiry, but they sought an adjournment on a false ground of illness. The inquiry letter was served on 20th January, 1976 whereby they were required to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 24th January, 1976. So it cannot be said that the time so allowed was insufficient justifying the view taken by the learned Presiding Officer. Again, as I have said, a false ground of illness was pleaded. I have gone through both the applications. They are practically worded in the same language and appear to have been written at the same time.
Neither of the applications was supported by any medical certificate. It is ridiculous to say that both of them simultaneously fell ill Authorities are not wanting that when an adjournment is sought on a false ground it must be refused. In my view the Inquiry Officer was justified in refusing the adjournment. I am unable to agree with the learned presiding Officer that the respondents were not adopting dilatory tactics.
7. The learned Presiding Officer had reliederal upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Delhi Cloth & Gen. Mills Co. Ltd. v. Tejvir Singh ((1972)1 L L J 201) but that case is clearly distinguishable. In that case the charge sheet was served on 18th February and inquiry was fixed on the following day at 8-00, a. m. The workman appeared before the Inquiry Officer and sought an adjournment on the ground that he wanted some time to prepare his defence. The adjournment was refused and the inquiry was held and concluded. The respondent was not allowed an opportunity to produce his defence witnesses. It was in those circumstances that it was held that the principle of natural justice was violated and sufficient time was not allowed to the workman to defend himself. It is, therefore, clear that decision was wrongly applied in order to support the view that the refusal of adjournment in the present case was not justified.
8. In result I allow the appeals and set aside the orders passed by the Labour Court. I am; however, not dismissing the applications made under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance as the learned Representative for the respondents has raised some additional grounds which were not dealt with by the Labour Court and I did not allow him to address me in respect of those grounds, but I had pointed out that in case the appeals were allowed, the cases would be remanded and he would be at liberty to raise those pleas before the Labour Court. This may, however, be made clear that no additional evidence shall be permitted to be adduced by the either party.
9. In the circumstances I remand the cases to the Labour Court for disposal on merits on the fresh grounds which may be raised on behalf of the respondents and after hearing the other side.