AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—The issue as to whether an advocate represented the management in a suit could be appointed enquiry officer against the
worker and the enquiry conducted by him would be vitiated on the ground of bias has arisen for consideration in this writ petition.
The factual matrix that has occasioned in the writ petition are as follows:- The first respondent was working as a Plant Operator in the writ
petitioner-Management. He was issued with a charge memo for misconduct viz., that he absented himself from duty between 25.1.95 and 10.2.95
without availing leave and that on 10.2.95 he misbehaved at the office premises before the Manager and others. One Mr. C.K. Natarajan, an
advocate, was appointed as enquiry officer. As the charges were held to be proved in the enquiry, the first respondent was dismissed from service
by order dated 10.6.96. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No. 220 of 1996 before the
Labour Court, Coimbatore. The issue as to whether the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner by following the principles of natural
justice was tried as a preliminary issue by the Labour Court. The Labour Court, by the impugned order, held that inasmuch as the said
C.K.Natarajan had appeared for the management in O.S. No. 492 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Mettupalayam and obtained an order of
injunction in I.A. No. 631 of 1995 on 30.3.95 against the very same worker, the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer as to the misconduct
against the first respondent would not be in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the first respondent.
It appears that during the month of Mar''1995, the management filed the above suit against the first respondent and his supporters from
obstructing the ingress and egress to the petitioner factory and office premises by organizing a gate meeting and causing inconvenience to the
customers. The suit was filed since the first respondent and his associates along with some politically affiliated persons were causing disturbance for
the smooth running of the factory. Mr. C.K. Natarajan, Advocate appeared for the management and obtained the order of injunction. Later, for
the misconduct of absenting from duty without availing leave and for misbehaving with the superiors in the office premises, the charge memo was
issued and, not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered wherein the said C.K.Natarajan, Advocate was appointed as enquiry
officer.
The issue as to whether the person sometimes engaged as a lawyer by the employer would be incompetent on the ground of bias to act as an
enquiry officer against the same worker came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Saran Motors (Private) Ltd., New Delhi v.
Vishwanath and Anr. 1964 II LLJ 139. In that case a domestic enquiry was conducted by a lawyer who was engaged sometimes by the employer
in industrial matters. While considering the contention as to the bias, the Apex Court observed as follows:-
The first question which we have to decide is whether the tribunal was justified in holding that Sri Chadha has a bias in favour of the appellant, and
so, was incompetent to hold the enquiry. It appears that Sri Chadha is sometimes engaged by the appellant as a lawyer in industrial matters and the
respondents'' case was that he had been entrusted with the work of holding such enquiries on four or five occasions. It is on these grounds that the
tribunal has held that Sri Chadha was not competent to hold the present enquiry. In our opinion, this view is completely erroneous and cannot be
sustained. We have repeatedly pointed out that domestic enquiries in industrial relations must be fairly conducted and whenever we are satisfied
that any enquiry was not fairly conducted or its conclusions were not supported by evidence, we have unhesitatingly ignored the findings recorded
at such an enquiry and held that the tribunals must deal with the merits of the dispute for themselves; but it is impossible to accept the argument that
because a person is sometimes employed by the employer as a lawyer, he becomes incompetent to hold a domestic enquiry. It is well-known that
enquiries of this type are generally conducted by the officers of the employer and in the absence of any special individual bias attributable to a
particular officer, it has never been held that the enquiry is bad just because it is conducted by an officer of the employer. If that be so, it is
obviously unsound to take the view that a lawyer, who is not a paid officer of the employer, is incompetent to hold the enquiry, because he is the
employer''s lawyer and is paid remuneration for holding the enquiry."" The Apex Court in the decision in Dalmia Dadri Cement, Ltd. Vs. Shri
Murari Lal Bikaneria, had also taken the similar view.
A similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in A. Veemen v. The Management of the Paramakudi
Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Ramand District v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai 1993 W.L.R. 489. In that case also the enquiry
was conducted by an advocate who represented the management in some cases. While considering the same, the Division Bench has observed as
follows:-
Would a domestic enquiry stand vitiated only on the ground that it had been conducted by an Advocate engaged by the employer or in other
words does an Advocate suffer from any disqualification to conduct a domestic enquiry only for the reason that he had been engaged by the
management to conduct the enquiry, is the first question which requires our consideration. There is indeed no material on the record to show that
the Advocate had been engaged to conduct the domestic enquiry by the management against the appellant was in fact the junior of an Advocate
who had been generally representing the management but even if it be assumed for the sake of argument, that he was so, that by itself, in our
opinion, would not be sufficient to vitiate a domestic enquiry.
Mr. C.K. Natarajan, Advocate had appeared for the management in the suit and he obtained interim order on 30.3.95. The first respondent
was intimated as to the appointment of the said C.K.Natarajan as the enquiry officer in the letter of the management even on 1.3.95. After the
enquiry officer was appointed, the first respondent had participated in the enquiry without any objection. Only when the industrial dispute was
heard, the first respondent has raised the above contention as a preliminary issue. Even in the petition nothing has been stated against the enquiry
officer as to the bias except by pleading that in view of the fact that he appeared in the suit he is biased and therefore he cannot be appointed as
enquiry officer. The circumstances do not justify the conclusion that the enquiry officer had acted in a biased manner in the enquiry and was unduly
hasty in submitting a report against the worker. In the absence of such specific plea coupled with the fact that the first respondent had participated
in the enquiry without any objection, the submission the enquiry is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice as the enquiry officer was
biased cannot be accepted. The Labour Court had overlooked the above fact and had come to the conclusion that the enquiry was vitiated for
non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.
In that view of the matter, the preliminary award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore in holding that the enquiry is vitiated for non-compliance of
the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court,
Coimbatore for disposal of the industrial dispute. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.