Case: State Bank Of India Vs. R. K. Jain &amp; Ors

the Tribunal to accept the evidence adduced by the management and hold in its favour even if its finding is against the management regarding the validity of the domestic inquiry. It is essentially a matter for the management to decide about the stand that it proposes to take before the Tribunal. It may be emphasised, that it is the right of the management to sustain its order by adducing also independent evidence before the Tribunal. It is a right given to the management and it is for the management to avail itself of the said opportunity. 38. We will now refer to the decisions of the High Courts, which have been referred by the learned solicitor. In M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd v. Their Workers through Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha and others, [1969 - II L.L.J. 202]; 1970 Lab. & I.C. 102, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court had to consider a claim made by the management that if a Labour Court comes to a conclusion that the domestic inquiry was not fair, it should have given notice to the management regarding its finding about the defect in the domestic inquiry and then give an opportunity to the management to adduce independent evidence before it to establish the charge against the workman. This contention was negatived by the High Court on the ground that there was no obligation, in law, on the part of the Labour Court to indicate its mind about the infirmities in the domestic inquiry at any stage before it gave its finding in the award. 39. A contrary view has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, [1971 - I L.L.J. 447] : 1970 Lab. & I.C. 510. A Division Bench of the said High Court has held that it is a healthy practice, that after coming to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry was not proper, the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court should give an opportunity to the employer to produce evidence to satisfy the authority that the action taken by it is justified. 40. A similar view has also been taken by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Premnath Motors Workshop Private Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, [1971 - I L.L.J. 167]; (1971) I.F. & L.R. 370. In the said decision it has been held that it is essential that a Tribunal or a Labour Court gives at first a finding about the legality of the domestic inquiry before it decides to consider the merits of the charges. At that stage the Tribunal must give the parties an opportunity to adduce such evidence regarding the charges as the Tribunal might consider relevant. 41. It is clear from the three decisions of the High Courts, referred to above, that there is a difference of view between the Orissa High Court on the one hand and the Madhya Pradesh and Delhi High Courts on the other. The Madhya Pradesh and Delhi High Courts appear to proceed on the basis that the inquiry before the Tribunal has to be conducted in two parts, namely, first an investigation into the validity of the domestic inquiry, and if the decision is against the management on this point, then to conduct a further inquiry regarding the evidence that may be adduced by the parties about the validity of the action taken by the management. As already mentioned by us earlier, there is no justification for such a view being taken. By and large, we are in agreement with the views expressed by the Orissa High Court. But the Orissa High Court has observed that it may be open to the management to request the Tribunal to decide, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic inquiry that may have been conducted by it. In our opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid down under what circumstances an issue is to be decided as a preliminary issue. That is a matter for the Tribunal or the Labour Court concerned to consider, having due regard to the nature of the pleadings and the points that arise for consideration. 42. In the case before us the appellant has no right to make a grievance that he should have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence on facts before the Tribunal justifying the action taken by it against the workman. The written statement filed by the appellant before the Industrial Tribunal makes it quite clear that the appellant was prepared to sustain the validity of the order of discharge solely on the basis of the domestic inquiry conducted by B. D. Sharma. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal was also of the inquiry officer B. D. Sharma and of the officer who passed the order of termination. Both these witnesses referred only to the proceedings connected with the domestic inquiry and gave evidence to the effect that the workman was given all facilities to participate in the domestic inquiry. The managements stand was that it is prepared to justify the legality of the order of discharge solely on the basis of the domestic inquiry held by it as a result of which the order of discharge was passed. It never offered to produce any evidence before the Tribunal, apart from the inquiry proceedings. No doubt, there is a right in the management to adduce evidence before the Tribunal and justify the action taken by it. No such opportunity was asked for by the appellant nor even availed of. If such an opportunity was asked for, but refused by the Tribunal, the position would be entirely different. The appellant further has not even made a grievance in the special leave petition that it was not given an opportunity by the Tribunal to adduce independent evidence to justify the action taken by it. Therefore, it follows that the third contention of the learned Solicitor-General has also to be rejected.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]35. From the above extract it is clear that it is open to the management to rely upon the domestic inquiry conducted by it and satisfy the Tribunal that there is no infirmity attached to the same. The management has also got a right to justify on facts as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.The above principles have also been reiterated in the later decisions of this Court. Under those circumstances, we fail to see why the High Courts should raise a controversy about the stage when the management has to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to justify the action taken by it.It should be remembered that when an order of punishment by way of dismissal or termination of service is effected by the management, the issue that is referred is whether the management was justified in discharging and terminating the service of the workman concerned and whether the workman is entitled to any relief. In the present case, the actual issue that was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal had already been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment. There may be cases where an inquiry has been held preceding the order of termination or there may have been no inquiry at all. But the dispute that will be referred is not whether the domestic inquiry has been conducted properly or not by the management, but the larger question whether the order of termination, dismissal or the order imposing punishment on the workman concerned is justified. Under those circumstances it is the right of the workman to plead all infirmities in the domestic inquiry, if one has been held, and also to attack the order on all grounds available to him in law and on facts. Similarly the management has also a right to defend the action taken by it on the ground that a proper domestic inquiry has been held by it on the basis of which the order impugned has been passed. It is also open to the management to justify on facts that the order passed by it was proper. But the point to be noted is that the inquiry that is conducted by the Tribunal is a composite inquiry regarding the order which is under challenge. If the management defends its action solely on the basis that the domestic inquiry held by it is proper and valid and if the Tribunal hold against the management on that point, the management will fail. On the other hand, if the management relies not only on the validity, of the domestic inquiry, but also adduces evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action, it is open to the Tribunal to accept the evidence adduced by the management and hold in its favour even if its finding is against the management regarding the validity of the domestic inquiry. It is essentially a matter for the management to decide about the stand that it proposes to take before the Tribunal. It may be emphasised, that it is the right of the management to sustain its order by adducing also independent evidence before the Tribunal. It is a right given to the management and it is for the management to avail itself of the said opportunity.We will now refer to the decisions of the High Courts, which have been referred by the learned solicitor. In M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd v. Their Workers through Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha and others, [1969 - II L.L.J. 202]; 1970 Lab. & I.C. 102, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court had to consider a claim made by the management that if a Labour Court comes to a conclusion that the domestic inquiry was not fair, it should have given notice to the management regarding its finding about the defect in the domestic inquiry and then give an opportunity to the management to adduce independent evidence before it to establish the charge against the workman. This contention was negatived by the High Court on the ground that there was no obligation, in law, on the part of the Labour Court to indicate its mind about the infirmities in the domestic inquiry at any stage before it gave its finding in the award.39. A contrary view has been taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Industrial Court, Madhya Pradesh, [1971 - I L.L.J. 447] : 1970 Lab. & I.C. 510. A Division Bench of the said High Court has held that it is a healthy practice, that after coming to the conclusion that the domestic inquiry was not proper, the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court should give an opportunity to the employer to produce evidence to satisfy the authority that the action taken by it is justified.A similar view has also been taken by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Premnath Motors Workshop Private Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, [1971 - I L.L.J. 167]; (1971) I.F. & L.R. 370. In the said decision it has been held that it is essential that a Tribunal or a Labour Court gives at first a finding about the legality of the domestic inquiry before it decides to consider the merits of the charges. At that stage the Tribunal must give the parties an opportunity to adduce such evidence regarding the charges as the Tribunal might consider relevant.It is clear from the three decisions of the High Courts, referred to above, that there is a difference of view between the Orissa High Court on the one hand and the Madhya Pradesh and Delhi High Courts on the other. The Madhya Pradesh and Delhi High Courts appear to proceed on the basis that the inquiry before the Tribunal has to be conducted in two parts, namely, first an investigation into the validity of the domestic inquiry, and if the decision is against the management on this point, then to conduct a further inquiry regarding the evidence that may be adduced by the parties about the validity of the action taken by the management. As already mentioned by us earlier, there is no justification for such a view being taken. By and large, we are in agreement with the views expressed by the Orissa High Court. But the Orissa High Court has observed that it may be open to the management to request the Tribunal to decide, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic inquiry that may have been conducted by it. In our opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid down under what circumstances an issue is to be decided as a preliminary issue. That is a matter for the Tribunal or the Labour Court concerned to consider, having due regard to the nature of the pleadings and the points that arise for consideration.In the case before us the appellant has no right to make a grievance that he should have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence on facts before the Tribunal justifying the action taken by it against the workman. The written statement filed by the appellant before the Industrial Tribunal makes it quite clear that the appellant was prepared to sustain the validity of the order of discharge solely on the basis of the domestic inquiry conducted by B. D. Sharma. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal was also of the inquiry officer B. D. Sharma and of the officer who passed the order of termination. Both these witnesses referred only to the proceedings connected with the domestic inquiry and gave evidence to the effect that the workman was given all facilities to participate in the domestic inquiry. The managements stand was that it is prepared to justify the legality of the order of discharge solely on the basis of the domestic inquiry held by it as a result of which the order of discharge was passed. It never offered to produce any evidence before the Tribunal, apart from the inquiry proceedings. No doubt, there is a right in the management to adduce evidence before the Tribunal and justify the action taken by it. No such opportunity was asked for by the appellant nor even availed of. If such an opportunity was asked for, but refused by the Tribunal, the position would be entirely different. The appellant further has not even made a grievance in the special leave petition that it was not given an opportunity by the Tribunal to adduce independent evidence to justify the action taken by it. Therefore, it follows that the third contention of the learned Solicitor-General has also to be rejected.As mentioned earlier the appellant has discharged the services of the first respondent under(c) of cl. 10 referred to above. It will also be seen that(a) of cl. 10 incorporates substantially the principles of natural justice in the conduct of an inquiry and also of giving a reasonable opportunity to the workman concerned to defend himself, which includes a right tothe witnesses on the side of the management, and also to adduce evidence in support of his defence.The legal position regarding the circumstances under which the Tribunal can interfere with the domestic inquiry have been laid down by this Court. Among the circumstances which will justify the interference by the Tribunal are : when the order of discharge is punitive, or mala fide or when it amounts to victimization or unfair labour practice, vide Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. v. Their Workmen,L.L.J. 602]. The order terminating the services of the workman can also be set aside when there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, in the conduct of the inquiry which led to the passing of the order of termination. The extent of the jurisdiction of a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to interfere with an order of termination passed on the basis of domestic inquiry held by the management have also been reiterated by this Court in Anand Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1963II L.L.J. 429]; (1964) 3 S.C.R. 601 at page 606 (of S.C.R.) as followsextent of the jurisdiction which a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal can exercise dealing with such disputes isIf the termination of an industrial employees services has been preceded by a proper domestic enquiry which has been held in accordance with the rules of natural justice and the conclusions reached at the said enquiry are not perverse, the Tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or the correctness of the said conclusions. If, on the other hand, in terminating the services of the employee, the management had acted maliciously or vindictively or has been actuated by a desire to punish the employee for his trade union activities, the Tribunal would be entitled to give adequate protection to the employee by ordering his reinstatement, or directing in his favour the payment of compensation; but if the enquiry has been proper and the conduct of the management in dismissing the employee is not mala fide, then the Tribunal cannot interfere with the conclusions of the enquiry officer, or with the orders passed by the management after accepting the said conclusions.That an officer holding the domestic inquiry can take, no valid or effective steps to compel the attendance of any witness and that, just as the management produces its witnesses before the officer concerned for giving evidence, it is the duty of the workman to take steps to produce his witnesses before the inquiry officer holding a domestic inquiry, are also laid down by his Court in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1963II L.L.J. 78]; (1964) 7 S.C.R. 555.Having due regard to the principles laid down in the above decisions, the contention of the learned solicitor that the inquiry officer B. D. Sharma, was justified in refusing to examine the three officers of the appellant branch as desired by the workman and that he was also justified in refusing to summon the two cashiers, namely, Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, to give evidence, on the ground that it is the duty of the workman to have them produced for giving evidence, no doubt, may on the face of it appear to be very attractive. But when the facts are considered, it will be clear that no reasonable opportunity has been provided in the domestic inquiry to the workman to place his defence. As emphasised by this Court in Ananda Bazar Patrika (P.) Ltd. v. Its Workmen (supra), the termination of an employees service must be preceded by a proper domestic inquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Therefore, it is evident that if the inquiry is vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice or if no reasonable opportunity was provided to a delinquent to place his defence, it cannot be characterized as a proper domestic inquiry held in accordance with the rules of natural justice. He will be indicating later that the domestic inquiry held in this case suffers from a very serious infirmity.Mr. Ramamurthi referred us to certain letters addressed by the staff association on behalf of R. K. Jain in support of his contention that the second inquiry was not held at the instance of the workman. In our opinion, Mr. Ramamurthi isin his contention and the view of the Industrial Tribunal in this regard is correct. We will now refer to the material on record which will support the above finding of the Industrial Tribunal.The correspondence that took place between the inquiry officer and the staff association clearly shows that the workman never wanted a second inquiry to be conducted against him. The correspondence also shows that the first inquiry, though it was conducted to the finish by B. P. Tiwari was abandoned by the management due to the unreasonable attitude of the officers of the Reserve Bank of India, who figured as witnesses, refusing to beby the workman. The management never informed the workman about their decision to conduct a second inquiry till B. D. Sharma himself conveyed that intention to the workman only as late as May 27, 1961. It is clearly established in the circumstances that the second inquiry was not conducted because the workman wanted it. On the other hand, it is clear that it was being conducted at the instance of the management. Therefore, the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the second inquiry was not conducted because the workman wanted it, isthese circumstances, quite naturally the two witnesses did not appear before the inquiry officer and the workman also could not afford to bring them all the way to give evidence on his side. On the other hand, the management brought all their officers as well as the officers of the Reserve Bank for the purpose of giving evidence on their side and the management incurred all the expenses in that behalf. During the course of the correspondence the workman even made a request that the Reserve Bank officers had already given evidence in the previous inquiry and that the present inquiry may be confined only to theirand the inquiry continued from the stage. He also made a request that in case the two cashiers, Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, are not summoned on his behalf, their evidence given in the inquiry held by B. P. Tiwari, which was already on record, may be treated as their evidence in the present proceedings. These requests were also rejected by the inquirynormally, it may be the duty of the workman to have his witnesses produced before the inquiry officer in the particular circumstances of this case the position is entirely different. The workman has admittedly incurred heavy expenses in the previous inquiry conducted by B. P. Tiwari. There is no controversy that he brought the two cashiers at considerable expense to give evidence on his side. That inquiry conducted by B. P. Tiwari was abandoned by the management not because of any fault of the workman but because of the unreasonable attitude adopted by the employees of the Reserve Bank who gave evidence. For the conduct of those witnesses, the workman, in our opinion, should not be punished by making him to incur the expenses over again specially when the second inquiry was being conducted by the management of its own volition in spite of protest made by the workman, and the management was prepared to bear the expenses of the second inquiry regarding its officers as well as the officers of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana. But it was not prepared to accept, what, in our view, was a reasonable and modest request made by the first respondent to have the two cashiers summoned for giving evidence on his side. As to what evidence they would have given or as to whether the evidence given by them would have helped the respondent No. 1 are not matters which arise for consideration, because their evidence was not made available in the second inquiry. Under those circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the domestic inquiry and that the workman was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to place his defence before the inquiry officer. It may be that the order of the inquiry officer declining to ask the management to produce the three officers may be justified, because the inquiry officer certainly has discretion to consider whether their evidence will be relevant or not. But the inquiry officer, who was part of the management, was not justified in not forwarding the request of the workman to arrange for the production of Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram. Therefore, it follows that the domestic inquiry suffers from a very serious infirmity and in consequence the order of discharge based upon the findings recorded in such an inquiry cannot be sustained. Such an order has been rightly set aside by the Industrialare not inclined to accept this contention of the learned solicitor. Apart from the fact that the management never sought to place any reliance on this part of(c), quoted above, before the Tribunal or even in the special leave petition before this Court, the contention is also devoid of substance. The finding of the inquiry officer B. D. Sharma is that, on the evidence adduced before him the workman is guilty of both the charges levelled against him and that the charges have been proved beyond all doubt. The show cause notice dated March 4, 1953 sent by the superintendent of the appellant branch at Ambala categorically says that in the inquiry conducted by B. D. Sharma, the workman has been found guilty of the charges and that on the basis of the said finding, it is proposed to punish the workman by discharging him from service without notice. The final order of discharge dated August 1, 1963 is also to the same effect. Therefore, the appellant never proceeded on the basis that the service of the appellant was being dispensed with on the ground that the management did not think it expedient to retain the workman in its service, notwithstanding the fact that the evidence has been found to be insufficient to sustain the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the second contention of the learned solicitor has to be rejected.True it is, that it has been held by this Court in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Ltd. v.II L.L.J. 162]; (1965) 3 S.C.R. 588, at page 596 (S.C.R.)ed, by a number of decisions of this Court that where an employer has failed to make an enquiry before dismissing or discharging a workman it is open to him to justify the action before the Tribunal by leading all relevant evidence before it. In such a case the employer would not have the benefit which he had in cases where domestic enquiries have been held. The entire matter would be open before the Tribunal which will have jurisdiction not only to go into the limited questions open to a Tribunal where domestic enquiry has been properly held (see Indian Iron & Steel Co. v. Their Workman, [1958I L.L.J. 260]; (1958) S.C.R. 667, but also to satisfy itself on the facts adduced before it by the employer whether the dismissal or discharge was justified. We may in this connection refer to M/s. Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan, [1959II L.L.J. 388]; (1959) Supp. 2. S.C.R. 836, Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen, [1959II L.L.J. 663]; (1960) 1 S.C.R. 32, and Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1959II L.L.J. 666]; (1960) 1 S.C.R. 806. These three cases were further considered by this Court in Bharat Sugar Mills Limited v. Shri Jai Singh, [1961II L.L.J. 644]; (1962) 3 S.C.R. 684, and reference was also made to the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Shri Ram Swarath Sinha v. Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. (1954) Lab. A.C. 697. It was pointed out that the important effect of omission to hold an enquiry was merely this : that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case but would decide for itself on the evidence adduced whether the charges have really been made out. It is true that there of these cases, except Phulbari Tea Estates case (supra) were on applications under S.33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act,But in principle we see no difference whether the matter comes before the Tribunal for approval under S. 33 or on a reference under S.10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act,In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no inquiry has been held as required by standing orders, the entire case would be open before the Tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper. Phulbari Tea Estates case (supra) was on a reference under S. 10 and the same principle was applied there also, the only difference being that in that case, there was an inquiry though it was defective. A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing as no enquiry and in either case the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to satisfy the Tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper.From the above extract it is clear that it is open to the management to rely upon the domestic inquiry conducted by it and satisfy the Tribunal that there is no infirmity attached to the same. The management has also got a right to justify on facts as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.e above principles have also been reiterated in the later decisions of this Court. Under those circumstances, we fail to see why the High Courts should raise a controversy about the stage when the management has to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to justify the action taken by it.t should be remembered that when an order of punishment by way of dismissal or termination of service is effected by the management, the issue that is referred is whether the management was justified in discharging and terminating the service of the workman concerned and whether the workman is entitled to any relief. In the present case, the actual issue that was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal had already been quoted in the earlier part of the judgment. There may be cases where an inquiry has been held preceding the order of termination or there may have been no inquiry at all. But the dispute that will be referred is not whether the domestic inquiry has been conducted properly or not by the management, but the larger question whether the order of termination, dismissal or the order imposing punishment on the workman concerned is justified. Under those circumstances it is the right of the workman to plead all infirmities in the domestic inquiry, if one has been held, and also to attack the order on all grounds available to him in law and on facts. Similarly the management has also a right to defend the action taken by it on the ground that a proper domestic inquiry has been held by it on the basis of which the order impugned has been passed. It is also open to the management to justify on facts that the order passed by it was proper. But the point to be noted is that the inquiry that is conducted by the Tribunal is a composite inquiry regarding the order which is under challenge. If the management defends its action solely on the basis that the domestic inquiry held by it is proper and valid and if the Tribunal hold against the management on that point, the management will fail. On the other hand, if the management relies not only on the validity, of the domestic inquiry, but also adduces evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action, it is open to the Tribunal to accept the evidence adduced by the management and hold in its favour even if its finding is against the management regarding the validity of the domestic inquiry. It is essentially a matter for the management to decide about the stand that it proposes to take before the Tribunal. It may be emphasised, that it is the right of the management to sustain its order by adducing also independent evidence before the Tribunal. It is a right given to the management and it is for the management to avail itself of the said opportunity.A similar view has also been taken by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Premnath Motors Workshop Private Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, [1971I L.L.J. 167]; (1971) I.F. & L.R. 370. In the said decision it has been held that it is essential that a Tribunal or a Labour Court gives at first a finding about the legality of the domestic inquiry before it decides to consider the merits of the charges. At that stage the Tribunal must give the parties an opportunity to adduce such evidence regarding the charges as the Tribunal might consider relevant.It is clear from the three decisions of the High Courts, referred to above, that there is a difference of view between the Orissa High Court on the one hand and the Madhya Pradesh and Delhi High Courts on the other. The Madhya Pradesh and Delhi High Courts appear to proceed on the basis that the inquiry before the Tribunal has to be conducted in two parts, namely, first an investigation into the validity of the domestic inquiry, and if the decision is against the management on this point, then to conduct a further inquiry regarding the evidence that may be adduced by the parties about the validity of the action taken by the management. As already mentioned by us earlier, there is no justification for such a view being taken. By and large, we are in agreement with the views expressed by the Orissa High Court. But the Orissa High Court has observed that it may be open to the management to request the Tribunal to decide, in the first instance, as a preliminary issue regarding the validity of the domestic inquiry that may have been conducted by it. In our opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid down under what circumstances an issue is to be decided as a preliminary issue. That is a matter for the Tribunal or the Labour Court concerned to consider, having due regard to the nature of the pleadings and the points that arise for consideration.In the case before us the appellant has no right to make a grievance that he should have been given an opportunity to adduce evidence on facts before the Tribunal justifying the action taken by it against the workman. The written statement filed by the appellant before the Industrial Tribunal makes it quite clear that the appellant was prepared to sustain the validity of the order of discharge solely on the basis of the domestic inquiry conducted by B. D. Sharma. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal was also of the inquiry officer B. D. Sharma and of the officer who passed the order of termination. Both these witnesses referred only to the proceedings connected with the domestic inquiry and gave evidence to the effect that the workman was given all facilities to participate in the domestic inquiry. The managements stand was that it is prepared to justify the legality of the order of discharge solely on the basis of the domestic inquiry held by it as a result of which the order of discharge was passed. It never offered to produce any evidence before the Tribunal, apart from the inquiry proceedings. No doubt, there is a right in the management to adduce evidence before the Tribunal and justify the action taken by it. No such opportunity was asked for by the appellant nor even availed of. If such an opportunity was asked for, but refused by the Tribunal, the position would be entirely different. The appellant further has not even made a grievance in the special leave petition that it was not given an opportunity by the Tribunal to adduce independent evidence to justify the action taken by it. Therefore, it follows that the third contention of the learnedhas also to be rejected.