LexBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY versus DILIPKUMAR RAGHAVENDRANATH NADKARNI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 c D E F G • H 828 ' ,. BOARD OF TRYSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY v. DILIPKUMAR RAGHAVENDRANATH NADKARNI AND OTHERS November 17, 1982 [D. A. DBSAI, AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.J Departmental Proceedings-Domestic enquiry-Management appointed legally trained officers as prosec~ting officers-Employee's request to be represented by a legal practilioner rejected-whether violates principles of natural }ustiCe. . . Natural justice-Employee denied asJistance of legal practitioner before domestic enquiry while management engaged legally trained men as prosecuting officers-Whether viola/es principles of natural justice. The time honoured and traditional approach in regard to a domestic enquiry in industrial disputes is that. it is a managerial funCtion which would be best left to the management without the interven!ion of persons belonging to the legal proression. This approach was based on the ground that a domestic· enQuiry. should not be unduly inhibited by strict rules Of evidence and procedural laws and t\la t in the informal atmosphere in which the enquiry is cOnducted the delinquent would be able to defend himself. Whatever justification there might have been in the past for holfting this view, the positi<1n toda'y is altogether different. Industrial establishments employ on their rolls an impressive array ·of Jabour officers and legal advisers in the garb of employees. These officers are appointed as presenting and' prosecuting officers for conducting the management's case in a domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer, more often than not, is a man of the establishment doning the robes of a judge. The enquiry is held in the establiSh· meat's office or part of it. Itdoes not bear any comparison to an adjudication by an impartial arbitrator or a Court presided over by~ an unbiased judge/ Wit~ nesses are generally employees of the management which orders the enquiry. In short the scales are weighted in favour· of the man~gement and against the· workman. (832 G-H, 834 E'.-FJ Se~oodly, even ia :1. dornes!ic enquiry there can be very serious charges : an adverse ven.lict may so stigmatiz·~ a workman that his future, both in regard to his reputation as well as his Jivelhood, might be put in jeopardy. [834 DJ The aphorism that "justiCe must not only be done but must be seen to be done" is not-a euphemism !l•pplicable to courts alone; it should apply with equal vigour t'o all those respo'tlsible for fairP,,lay in action. A quasi·judicial tribunal cannot view . the situation with equanimity where there is inequ~lity of rc~~sentatioo. [835 GJ • t--- '"t-· BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. DILIPKUMAR Broo~• Bond India (Pvt) Ltd. v. Subba Ramari (S) and Anr:, [1961] 2 Labour Law Journal 417 referred to. to. Dunlop Rubber Co. v. Workman, [1965J 2 SCR 139, referred to • • Pet. v. Greyhound Racing Association Ltd., [1968] 2 All E. R. 545, referred In a cbargesheet issued against the delinquent empJoyCe (respondent) for the misConduct alleged against. him th·e management appointed its legal officer and his assistant as presenting officers. At the same time it rejected- the employee's request to engage a legal practitioner for his defence. Meanwhile, as the enquiry was in progress, a regulation came into force enabling a delinquent employee to engage a· legal practitioner if the presenting officer appointed by the discipJinary authority is a legal practitioner. Even after the regulation came into 'force neither the enquiry officer nor the disciplinary a:uthority reviewed ·the earJier decision rejecting the delinquent's request to be represented by a legal practitioner. ·At the: end of the enciuiry the respondent Was dismissed from servic~. The High Court set aside. the order of dismissal on grounds of violation of principles of natural jtistice. · On the question whether, where in a domestic enquiry the employer appoints a legally trained person as piesenting.cum·prosecuting officer the ei:iquiry would be v!tiated for vioiation of ·principles of natural jussice if the employer rejected the delinquent's request for permission to defend him by a legal · practitioner. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : Since the delinquent employee had not been afforded a re.ason .. able opportunity to defend himself the enquiry ·is vitiated for vloJatiOn of principles of natural justice. [836 E] (1) Where in an enquiry before a domestic tribunal the delinquent is _ pitted against a legally trained pers
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.