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

2. The first respondent joined the service of the appellant on June 13, 1955 as a money tester and was working in that capacity at the Ambala City branch in July, 1960. On July 26, 1960, he was deputed to supervise the remittance of unissuable notes of Rs. 87, 48, 000 from the Ambala City branch to the note cancellation and verification section of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana for destruction. According to the appellant the procedure adopted for such purpose was, the currency notes intended to be carried for destruction to the concerned section of the Reserve Bank of India, are examined, counted and then tied in bundles with a label or slip attached to each packet containing the particulars including the initials of the examining officer. Each packet is then recounted by the money tester and the latter puts his initials on the label or slip in token of his having done the recounting, the idea being, that if any shortage is discovered subsequently, the person whose initials are found on the label or slip can be made liable to account for the deficiency, and be asked to make good the same. Accordingly, when the money was taken by the first respondent on July 26, 1960 and delivered to the note cancellation and verification section of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana, officials therein noted a shortage of Rs. 100 in the packet containing Rs. 10 denomination notes. Such a deficiency was noted in the packet to which was tacked the label bearing the initials of R. K. Jain. The shortage was pointed out to R. K. Jain by the officials of the Reserve Bank of India, and the packet was handed back to the former to enable him to satisfy himself regarding the shortage. R. K. Jain, under the guise of trying to unstitch the packet, tore off the label bearing his initials inspite of the protest made by the officials of the Reserve Bank of India. The torn label was picked up and as it contained the initials of R. K. Jain, the officials of the Reserve Bank of India kept the torn pieces intact. Later on, a verbal inquiry was made by the Superintendent of the Reserve Bank of India and R. K. Jain admitted the shortage by his letter dated July 29, 1960. In that letter, addressed to the Reserve Bank of India, R. K. Jain stated that while counting the packet containing the Rs. 10 notes in which a shortage of Rs. 100 was found, the slip was torn by him inadvertently and that he repasted the slip, after having confirmed the mutilation as desired by the officials of the Reserve Bank of India. Ambala City branch of the appellant addressed a letter dated August 13, 1960 to R. K. Jain regarding the reports made by the Currency Officer, Reserve Bank of India and the Superintendent incharge of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana, regarding the shortage of Rs. 100. In that letter, after referring to the counting of the packet by the first respondent and his tearing the label and repasting it, it is stated that the first respondent is responsible for the shortage as he has put his signature on the label in token of having recounted the packet and found it to be correct. It was further stated that the first respondent tore off the label because it contained his initials and this was done to avoid any liability or responsibility. These acts were stated to amount to gross misconduct and R. K. Jain was called upon to submit his explanation to the head office of the appellant. On August 16, 1960, the first respondent stated that the packet containing soiled notes was handled by several persons and counted more than once both in the branch at Ambala as well as in the concerned section of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana. After referring to the fact that the packet was given to him for recounting, as the officers asked him to hurry up the matter and to return the packet soon, and as there was a shortages of Rs. 100, he got confused and while handling the packet the covering slip tore off accidentally. This fact was explained to the officer of the Reserve Bank of India. He further stated that he did not destroy the label deliberately to avoid any liability. The first respondent has further stated that on the morning of July 26, 1960, ten notes of rupee one denomination were found short in a packet which was verified and found correct by the staff of the Reserve Bank of India. But later on the Superintendent of the Reserve Bank of India detected the shortage and this deficiency was made up by the staff of the Reserve Bank. The concerned staff of the Reserve Bank, who had made up the deficiency, was not well disposed towards him as he declined to accede to their request to reimburse them in the sum of Rs. 10 which they had to make good due to their negligence. Therefore, the staff of the Reverse Bank in the concerned section has made a false allegation that the slip was deliberately torn off by the first respondent. R. K. Jain has further stated that he had put in nearly five years service and had a clean record and that the allegations made against him were false and frivolous.Not satisfied with the explanation given by R. K. Jain, the appellant placed him under suspension with effect from September 6, 1960 pending an enquiry, which had been ordered against his conduct. By letter dated October 10, 1960, R. K. Jain was required to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the following chargesThat during the course of examination of Ambala City branch remittance of non-issuable notes sent to the note cancellation and verification section of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana, on 26-7-60, under your supervision, 10 pieces of Rs. 10 notes were found short in one packet; the packet in question was recounted by you at theThat when you were given the aforesaid packet for satisfying yourself regarding the shortage, you tried to unstitch it and in the process tore off the label stitched on the packet despite instructions not to do so. On the label being examined by the Superintendent-in-charge of the Reserve Banks note cancellation section, it was revealed that the label bore your signature in token of your having counted the packet in question. It is, therefore, obvious that you tried to destroy the label in order to absolve yourself of the responsibility for the shortage inwas further directed to submit his explanation within 10 days of the receipt of the charge-sheet.It will be seen from the above that charges against R. K. Jain were twofold : (i) There was a shortage of 10 pieces of notes of Rs. 10 denomination in the packet which contained the label bearing his initial; and (ii) that he tried to destroy the label in order to absolve himself from the liability for the shortage.R. K. Jain sent his explanation to the charges by his letter dated October 18, 1960. While admitting that he was deputed on July 26, 1960 to remit unissuable notes in the concerned section of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana, and the shortage being found and the packet being given to him for recounting, R. K. Jain has stated that as the packet had been handled by different persons in the offices of the two banks, the stitching had become loose. Therefore, when the packet was being recounted by him, the slip tore off accidently. As the staff of the Reserve Bank desired him to confirm the mutilation of the slip, he signed a letter which had been drafted by them on being assured that it was a routine procedure to be adopted. He denied that he deliberately tore off the slip bearing his initial to avoid responsibility for the shortage of currency notes. In turn he alleged that the staff of the Reserve Bank of India at Ludhiana, in the note cancellation and verification section was prejudiced against him as he had declined to accede to their request to pay them a sum of Rs. 10 which they had to make good in respect of another packet. He denied the charges as baseless and as he had signed the letter of July 29, 1960, as drafted by the staff of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana he requested that the proceedings may be dropped.It is seen that there was a departmental inquiry conducted by one B. P. Tiwari, an officer of the appellant branch at Ambala. The inquiry commenced on December 23, 1960 and the inquiry officer submitted his report on February 2, 1961 holding R. K. Jain guilt of the charges levelled against him. It is not necessary for us to advert to the findings in this report as a fresh inquiry was conducted later. It is only necessary to note that during the inquiry proceedings conducted by B. P. Tiwari, the first respondent had examined Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, who were cashiers at the Jullundur and Amritsar branches respectively, of the appellant bank, as his defence witnesses. They had given evidence complaining about the behaviour of the staff of the Reserve Bank of India in the note cancellation section particularly towards Potdars of the State Bank of India. It is also seen that some officers of the Reserve Bank of India at Ludhiana in the note cancellation section had given evidence for the appellant. Those officers surprisingly refused to be cross-examined by the first respondent during that inquiry. This resulted in the Deputy General Secretary of the State Bank of Indias Staff Association sending a letter on December 24, 1960 to B. P. Tiwari pointing out that in the inquiry that was being conducted by him, the employees of the Reserve Bank of India, at whose instance the charges had been framed against R. K. Jain, did not permit the delinquent to put them any question in cross-examination. In fact, it is averred that those officers of the Reserve Bank of India flatly refused to answer any questions that were put by R. K. Jain and his representative and also declined to answer any questions put to them in cross-examination. It was alleged that the statements given by those officers of the Reserve Bank of India were one-sided and R. K. Jain and his representative had to sit as spectators during the inquiry. The inquiry was quite contrary to the procedure to be adopted in disciplinary action taken in respect of bank employees. Notwithstanding this grievance made on behalf of the first respondent that the inquiry was opposed to all principles of natural justice and was not a proper inquiry, nothing seems to have been done by the appellant, as will be seen from the fact that the inquiry proceeded and the report, finding R. K. Jain guilty, was sent by B. P. Tiwari, so late as February 2, 1961.It is stated by the appellant that when the report of B. P. Tiwari was considered, the grievance made on behalf of R. K. Jain in the letter dated December 24, 1960 was taken into account and it was decided that the inquiry conducted by B. P. Tiwari was not a proper one and hence a de novo inquiry was directed to be done by another officer, B. D. Sharma. It may be mentioned that there is no order of the appellant on record, in and by which they directed a de novo inquiry by B. D. Sharma.It appears that the new inquiry officer B. D. Sharma sent a communication dated May 27, 1961 to R. K. Jain that he will be conducting another inquiry against him on the charges originally framed and that the inquiry is fixed for June 14, 1961. On receipt of this communication, the Deputy General Secretary of the State Bank of India Staff Association sent a reply on June 10, 1961 to B. D. Sharma stating that the association was astonished about the proposal to have a second inquiry. The letter proceeds to state that B. P. Tiwari conducted an inquiry about six months back and that though a report appears to have been sent by him to the head office, no copy of such a report had been furnished to R. K. Jain. The association has been making several inquiries from the head office regarding the matter, but the only reply that was received by it was that the matter was receiving the attention of the head office. The staff association further protested very strongly against the banks action in holding a fresh inquiry and that it was unjustified and amounted to an unfair labour practice. The association further charged the management that they were somehow or other intent on finding R. K. Jain guilty of some charge or other and to punish him. On these grounds the association made a request to cancel the second inquiry proposed to be held. A copy of this communication was also sent to the Secretary and Treasurer of the appellant bank at New Delhi requesting him to look into the matter and stop the fresh inquiry proposed to be conducted by B. D. Sharma on June 14, 1961. But the inquiry officer, by his letter dated June 13, 1961 informed R. K. Jain that the inquiry will be held on June 14, 1961 as already intimated. Again on June 14, 1961 the Deputy General Secretary of the Staff Association sent a communication to the inquiry officer that the head office has not informed R. K. Jain that a fresh inquiry is proposed to be conducted and that in fact even the details of the inquiry relating to the one conducted by B. P. Tiwari have not been furnished to him. The association again requested the inquiry officer to stop holding the inquiry and furnish R. K. Jain with a copy of the previous inquiry proceedings.We will have to refer to certain further correspondence that passed between the inquiry officer and the staff association on behalf of R. K. Jain. It is enough to state that R. K. Jain, when he found that the inquiry was being proceeded with consented to take part under protest. He made a request to the inquiry officer to summon five witnesses who are employees of the appellant bank. The inquiry officer rejected the request of R. K. Jain regarding three of those witnesses on the ground that their evidence will not be useful for the inquiry. Regarding the two others, the inquiry officer informed R. K. Jain that the latter should arrange for producing those witnesses at the inquiry at his expenses. R. K. Jain pleaded that those witnesses were examined by him in the previous proceedings at his expense and that he had already incurred considerable expense in that regard. The second inquiry was being held due to no fault of his and therefore he regretted is inability to have them summoned at his expense. But this plea was not accepted by the inquiry officer and the proceedings were conducted without those witnesses being examined on behalf of R. K. Jain.The inquiry proceedings were conducted by B. D. Sharma between June 14, 1961 and July 12, 1962. B. D. Sharma sent his report to the head office on August 23, 1962. In the said report the inquiry officer found that R. K. Jain was responsible for the shortage of the currency notes and that he deliberately tore off the slip bearing his initials in the packet where the deficiency was noted and this was done with the intention of destroying evidence of his having recounted the packet. The findings are by and large based upon the evidence of the officers of the Reserve Bank of India, who in the previous inquiry had refused to be cross-examined. On receipt of the report, the Superintendent of the Ambala City branch of the appellant, by his letter dated March 4, 1963 intimated R. K. Jain that the inquiry officer B. D. Sharma has found him guilty of the charges framed against him. It was further stated that the appellant has come to the decision that R. K. Jain should be discharged from service of the bank without notice in terms of paragraph 521(1)(c) of the Sastri Award read with paragraphs 18 and 28 of the Desai Award. R. K. Jain was desired to show cause within a week why the proposed punishment should not be imposed. He was also informed that he would be given a hearing before final orders are passed, if he so desired.The first respondent sent a reply on March 28, 1963 pleading innocence. In the said reply he alleged that the first inquiry by B. P. Tiwari was conducted contrary to all principles of natural justice. The second inquiry by B. D. Sharma was also conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. He made a grievance that his request to have certain witnesses summoned for being cross-examined on his behalf was arbitrarily rejected by the inquiry officer. He further alleged that his representative was not permitted to put the necessary questions to the officers of the Reserve Bank, who gave evidence before the inquiry officer. In particular he referred to the fact that his request to summon two witnesses Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, who were in the employ of the appellant was arbitrarily rejected by the inquiry officer. Apart from pleading all these facts, he alleged that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer were opposed to the evidence on record. The sum and substance of the grievance of R. K. Jain was that the inquiry conducted by B. D. Sharma was contrary to all principles of natural justice; and that he was not given a fair opportunity for placing his defence before the inquiry officer and the whole proceedings were not conducted in a judicial manner.The Superintendent of the appellant branch at Ambala, by his order dated October 1, 1963 discharged R. K. Jain from the service of the bank without notice, on the ground that his explanation contained in his letter dated March 28, 1963 was unsatisfactory and cannot be accepted. The first respondent filed an appeal on November 8, 1963 before the Deputy Secretary and Treasurer of the appellant bank at New Delhi. The appellate authority, however, rejected the appeal on January 18, 1964.We have given elaborately the circumstances leading to the order of discharge passed by the appellant bank in order to appreciate the background which led to a reference being made by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Central Government by its order dated September 1, 1966 referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh the following disputethe management of the State Bank of India was justified in discharging from service Shri R. K. Jain, money tester at Ambala City branch, with effect from 1st October, 1963 ? if not, to what relief is the employee entitled.In the written statement filed by the workman, after setting out the various facts mentioned earlier, it was averred that the Reserve Bank employees who appeared before B. P. Tiwari declined to be cross-examined by the workman and that the second inquiry by B. D. Sharma was conducted inspite of protests made by the workman. It was pleaded that the workman never wanted the second inquiry. He further alleged that the inquiry conducted by B. D. Sharma was in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he was denied an opportunity of having certain witnesses summoned, who were in the employ of the appellant, to give evidence. The workman also criticised the manner in which the inquiry proceedings were conducted by B. D. Sharma. The findings recorded by B. D. Sharma were also attacked as being opposed to the evidence on record. In particular, the workman made a grievance that he was denied the opportunity to summon Pooran Singh, cashier at Jullundur branch and Sanjhi Ram, cashier at Amritsar branch of the appellant bank, who had appeared as his witnesses in the inquiry conducted by B. P. Tiwari. He had incurred a lot of expense in that regard and the first inquiry was scraped for no fault of his and the second inquiry was ordered by the management of their own accord. All these matters have caused considerable prejudice in placing his defence before the inquiry officer.The appellant bank in its written statement admitted that during the inquiry conducted by B. P. Tiwari, the employees of the Reserve Bank at Ludhiana, who gave evidence, did not allow themselves to be cross-examined by the representative of R. K. Jain and, therefore, the said inquiry was not proper. It was because of the fact that the workman did not have a fair and proper inquiry was conducted against him, the second inquiry was directed to be conducted by B. D. Sharma. The bank further averred that full opportunity was given to the workman to place his defence and facilities were provided for arranging to any witnesses that he wanted to produce before the inquiry officer. The bank supported for findings recorded by the inquiry officer. The bank further averred that the agents at the Jullundur and Amritsar branches were permitted to release Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, if they were willing to give evidence at Ambala their expense on behalf of R. K. Jain. The bank finally pleaded that the action taken against R. K. Jain was perfectly justified and was in accordance with the procedure indicated in the Sastri Award.The Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated April 7, 1967, held that R. K. Jain not afforded a reasonable opportunity produce evidence in his defence during the inquiry conducted by B. D. Sharma and that the management was not justified in terminating his services, on the basis of the report of the inquiry officer. The Tribunal has referred to the evidence given by the inquiry officer R.W. 1, as well as the agent of the appellant but R.W. 2, when passed the order of discharge. It referred to the admission made by the inquiry officer regarding the request made by R. K. Jain to have the two cashiers, Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, examined on his behalf and the request was not acceded to on the ground then it was for the workman concerned to produce them for examination, if he so desired. According to the Tribunal the workman had been put to a considerable expense in examination those witnesses in the previous inquiry held B. P. Tiwari, which had to be abandoned due to no fault of the workman. The Tribunal further found that the workman did not want the second inquiry. Under those circumstances, when fresh inquiry was being conducted by the management, it is the view of the Tribunal that it was quite unreasonable on their part of expect a poor workman to be put to unnecessary and additional expense for no fault of his. The Tribunal also held that the inquiry was closed inspite of repeated requests made by the workman for summoning the witnesses and then even the statement of R. K. Jain was recorded after the evidence on the side of the management was closed. For all these reasons the Tribunal held that the inquiry proceeding were vitiated by violation of the principles natural justice and, therefore, the inquiry was not valid.

Court's reasoning:
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.