DECISION ' This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement of the respondent with full back benefits.
2. The respondent was in the permanent employment of the appellant. There was a strike in the Weaving Department where the respondent was working. It was alleged that the respondent had incited the workers to stage an illegal strike and he also participated in it. He was charge-sheeted.
An inquiry was held, he was found guilty and dismissed from service after second show-cause notice. He served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court.
3. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal on three grounds. The first ground taken by him is that the Inquiry Officer was a witness to the incident and, therefore, he could not be appointed as an Inquiry Officer and this had caused prejudice. The second ground was that the respondent was not supplied the copy of complaint and list of witnesses in spite of the request having been made by him. The third ground was that the respondent was examined before any witness on behalf of the Management was examined, as if the burden to prove the innocence lay upon him. He was cross-examined twice.
4. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as perused the record of the lower Court and the domestic inquiry and I fully support the view taken by the Labour Court. The inquiry held by an Inquiry Officer who was a witness was contrary to the principle of natural justice and, therefore, the A inquiry conducted by him was vitiated. There was also no justification to withhold the copy of complaint and list of witnesses to be examined by the Management without considering the request of the respondent.
It could not be possible for him to properly defend himself and cross-examine the witnesses in order to test their veracity. It was also wrong on the part of the Inquiry Officer to record evidence of the respondent before any witness for the Management was examined.
5. In order to meet this ground, the learned counsel for the appellant attempted to suggest that the respondent had admitted his guilt in reply to the second show-cause notice. I have gone through the aforesaid reply and there is absolutely nothing to support the contention. On the contrary, the respondent denied the allegations in unmistakable terms.
6. In result the appeal is summarily dismissed. It is, however, open to the Management to hold fresh inquiry after appointing another Inquiry Officer and take such action as may be deemed fit in accordance with law.