DECISION ' These are three appeals against the order of the Labour Court ordering the re-instatement of the respondents on the application made under section 25-A, I. R.
0.
2. The three respondents were in the permanent employment of the appellant. They were charge sheeted on various counts and after an inquiry they were dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this, they served grievance notices upon the appellant and approached the Labour Court.
3. The applications were resisted and it was pleaded that the respondents were found guilty of the charges after due inquiry.
4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court set aside the dismissal and ordered re-instatement.
5. The first ground taken by the Labour Court was that the respondents were dismissed from service without issuing any show-cause notice and without supplying the copies of the inquiry report. This has been admitted before me by the learned Representative appearing on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, no exception can be taken to pointed by the Labour Court. It was observed by the Labour Court that neither the Inquiry Officer was examined nor the inquiry proceedings1 were produced in the Court and, therefore, it was pleaded before him that the allegations made against the respondents were not established. The objection raised on behalf of the respondents is not without force.
6. It was further observed by the Labour Court that the Inquiry Officer was an Advocate and he acted as an Inquiry Officer without any lawful authority and, therefore, the inquiry proceedings were suffered from serious infirmity. I am not prepared to agree that merely because he was an Advocate be could not be appointed as an Inquiry officer but I fully agree that there is nothing on record to show that the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Management. The notice which the Inquiry Officer had issued to the respondents does not reveal that be had been appointed by the Management to hold that inquiry. The learned Presiding Officer had also pointed out certain manipulations in some other inquiry conducted by the same Inquiry Officer.
7. In the circumstances the inquiry suffered from serious infirmities and, therefore, was bad in law and could not be upheld.
8. In the circumstances I dismiss the appeal. It is, however, open to the appellant to hold fresh inquiry on the same charges by appointing an Inquiry Officer other than the previous Inquiry Officer as the inquiry by the same person is likely to cause prejudice to the respondents.