Case: Delhi Cloth &amp; General Mills Company Limited Vs. Thejvir Singh

to the appellant to recoach their witnesses to enable them to give improved statements. In this view the request of the management to adduce evidence was rejected by the same order. Ultimately, the application filed by the management No. 17 of 1966 was dismissed, and the permission asked for was refused. 12. Before us Mr. H. L. Anand, learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions : (1) That the view of the Industrial Tribunal about the enquiry proceedings not being proper is not correct; and (2) in any event the Tribunal erred in law in declining to permit the appellant to adduce evidence on merits. 13. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ludh Budh Singh, [1972 - I L.L.J. - 180], where the present appellant was also a party, we have elaborately considered the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Tribunal in dealing with such a matter and also the stage when an application for adducing evidence has to be made by the management and, therefore, we do not think it necessary to cover the ground over again. 14. Regarding the first contention it is enough to state that even a reference to a few facts will make it clear that the enquiry proceedings conducted by the management were grossly unfair to the workman. 15. It was on February 18, 1966 that the workman was informed that the enquiry will take place at 8 A.M. on the next day, i.e., February 19, 1966 and the workman was desired to be present to face the enquiry and be ready with his witnesses in defence. Therefore, the interval between the date of the notice and the time when the enquiry was to start itself was very short. As soon as the enquiry commenced on February 19, 1966, there is no controversy that the respondent made a written request to the enquiry officer to postpone the enquiry for two or three days to enable him to contact his representative to represent him in the enquiry and also to bring his witnesses. This very reasonable request was summarily rejected by the enquiry officer on the ground that as the notice of the enquiry dated February 18, 1966 specifically asked the workman to be ready with his witnesses, he should have been ready when the enquiry commenced and that he had already sufficient time. To say the least, it is a very unreasonable attitude to be adopted by an enquiry officer. 16. We have already pointed out that the enquiry officer without any material on record has stated that the representative of the workman is one Babu Ram Mishra Kunta working in the third shift and that he is easily available. The workman never mentioned that Babu Ram Mishra Kunta is the person whom he has in view for representing him in the enquiry. As to how the enquiry officer got this information or impression is not made clear from the record. The enquiry officer very curtly declined the request for adjournment. The result was that the management, on the same day, examined as many as three witnesses. These witnesses also produced a number of notifications and conciliation settlements with which, it is reasonable to infer, the workman would not have been familiar at all. It is not surprising that under those circumstances the workmen was not in position to effectively cross-examine those three witnesses. As soon as the evidence of these three witnesses was completed at about 12.30 P.M. the workman was immediately called upon to enter on his defence. He again made a request for adjournment to enable him to produce his witnesses. He was given just an hours time and the enquiry again commenced at 1.30 P.M. on the same day. The workman was able to get only one witness who spoke to the respondent merely mentioning to the people that there was strike on that day. There is no evidence to the effect that the workman was actively inciting any workman to go on strike. The enquiry officer on these materials has held that the respondent is guilty of misconduct alleged against him and this finding has been accepted by the management. The above fact clearly shows that the enquiry has been conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice without giving a real and fair opportunity to the workmen to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the enquiry proceedings were not properly held. 17. Coming to the second contention which relates to the request made by the management in its application dated March 15, 1966 for being given an opportunity to adduce evidence if the domestic enquiry is held to be defective we agree with the Tribunal when it rejected the application, but, however, we do not agree with the reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting the same. In its order the Tribunal has stated that if the management is allowed to adduce evidence it will mean that it can coach up its witnesses so as to give improved statements before the Tribunal. This is not a proper approach to be made when dealing with such an application. The nature of the evidence to be let in before the Tribunal is entirely a matter for the management and if such witnesses give a version different from the one given in the domestic enquiry, then it will be a matter for the Tribunal to consider those aspects in appreciating their evidence. 18. The legal position regarding the stage when such a request is to be made has also been very fully discussed by us, as pointed out earlier in Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Ludh Budh Singh, [1972 - I L.L.J. 180]. Having due regard to the principles stated therein, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the appellant for adducing additional evidence has not been filed at a proper stage and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the said application.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]14. Regarding the first contention it is enough to state that even a reference to a few facts will make it clear that the enquiry proceedings conducted by the management were grossly unfair to the workman15. It was on February 18, 1966 that the workman was informed that the enquiry will take place at 8 A.M. on the next day, i.e., February 19, 1966 and the workman was desired to be present to face the enquiry and be ready with his witnesses in defence. Therefore, the interval between the date of the notice and the time when the enquiry was to start itself was very short. As soon as the enquiry commenced on February 19, 1966, there is no controversy that the respondent made a written request to the enquiry officer to postpone the enquiry for two or three days to enable him to contact his representative to represent him in the enquiry and also to bring his witnesses. This very reasonable request was summarily rejected by the enquiry officer on the ground that as the notice of the enquiry dated February 18, 1966 specifically asked the workman to be ready with his witnesses, he should have been ready when the enquiry commenced and that he had already sufficient time. To say the least, it is a very unreasonable attitude to be adopted by an enquiry officer16. We have already pointed out that the enquiry officer without any material on record has stated that the representative of the workman is one Babu Ram Mishra Kunta working in the third shift and that he is easily available. The workman never mentioned that Babu Ram Mishra Kunta is the person whom he has in view for representing him in the enquiry. As to how the enquiry officer got this information or impression is not made clear from the record. The enquiry officer very curtly declined the request for adjournment. The result was that the management, on the same day, examined as many as three witnesses. These witnesses also produced a number of notifications and conciliation settlements with which, it is reasonable to infer, the workman would not have been familiar at all. It is not surprising that under those circumstances the workmen was not in position to effectively cross-examine those three witnesses. As soon as the evidence of these three witnesses was completed at about 12.30 P.M. the workman was immediately called upon to enter on his defence. He again made a request for adjournment to enable him to produce his witnesses. He was given just an hours time and the enquiry again commenced at 1.30 P.M. on the same day. The workman was able to get only one witness who spoke to the respondent merely mentioning to the people that there was strike on that day. There is no evidence to the effect that the workman was actively inciting any workman to go on strike. The enquiry officer on these materials has held that the respondent is guilty of misconduct alleged against him and this finding has been accepted by the management. The above fact clearly shows that the enquiry has been conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice without giving a real and fair opportunity to the workmen to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the enquiry proceedings were not properly held17. Coming to the second contention which relates to the request made by the management in its application dated March 15, 1966 for being given an opportunity to adduce evidence if the domestic enquiry is held to be defective we agree with the Tribunal when it rejected the application, but, however, we do not agree with the reasons given by the Tribunal for rejecting the same. In its order the Tribunal has stated that if the management is allowed to adduce evidence it will mean that it can coach up its witnesses so as to give improved statements before the Tribunal. This is not a proper approach to be made when dealing with such an application. The nature of the evidence to be let in before the Tribunal is entirely a matter for the management and if such witnesses give a version different from the one given in the domestic enquiry, then it will be a matter for the Tribunal to consider those aspects in appreciating their evidence18. The legal position regarding the stage when such a request is to be made has also been very fully discussed by us, as pointed out earlier in Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. Ludh Budh Singh, [1972 - I L.L.J. 180]. Having due regard to the principles stated therein, we are of the opinion that the application filed by the appellant for adducing additional evidence has not been filed at a proper stage and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the said application.