' This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement of the respondent with full benefits on an application made by the respondent.
2. The respondent was in the permanent employment of the appellant. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 20th February, 1976. Subsequently, an inquiry was held and he was found guilty. On the basis of the finding of the Inquiry Officer the respondent was served with the second show-cause notice and dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this, he served a grievance notice and then approached the Labour Court. The application was resisted and it was held that after duo Inquiry the appellant was found guilty and the action was taken. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessm ent of the evidence the Labour Court allowed the application and set aside the order of dismissal.
3. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I confine myself to one point only which relates to the illegality committed by the appellant. It was found by the learned Presiding Officer that the respondent was not allowed an opportunity to lead his defence. I entirely agree with this view. Although, the inquiry report shows that the inquiry was completed on 8th March, 1976 but one of the witnesses examined by the appellant admitted that the Inquiry Officer postponed the inquiry from 8th March, 1976 to 9th March, 1916 on the application of the respondent.
This belies the report of the Inquiry Officer that the inquiry was completed on 8th March, 1976. The presumption drawn by the Labour Court must be upheld.
4. In the result I dismiss the appeal. The appellant should allow an opportunity to the respondent to lead his defence, if any, after due notice to B him about the date, time and place of hearing by the Inquiry Officer and take such action as may be deemed fit in accordance with law on the conclusion of the inquiry.