NISHITA MHATRE,J. - (1.) THIS Writ Petition impugns the order of the Industrial Court whereby the Industrial Court has directed the Enquiry Officer to allow the petitioner to be defended by an office bearer of the Union of his choice. The Enquiry Officer has also been directed by the Industrial Court to record the evidence in the enquiry proceedings in English but the parties are directed to be put the questions in Hindi.
(2.) THE main contention raised by Ms. Tavadia, learned Advocate for the petitioner is that neither the petitioner nor his defence representative one M.L. Jha know English and, therefore, it would be difficult to con - duct the enquiry. She submits that great prejudice would be caused if the enquiry proceedings are recorded in English since both the petitioner and his defense repre - sentative would not know whether the proceedings have been correctly recorded. She relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Co -op. Bank Ltd. v. The Co -op. Bank Employees ' Union & Ors. In Writ Petition No. 1751 of 1995 by Dhanuka, J., wherein the learned Judge considered the Standing Orders applicable to the concern and held that the workmen in that case could be represented by a person who knew Hindi as the Standing Orders permitted the enquiry to be conducted as well as recorded in Hindi. She further sub - mitted that the Division Bench had not inter - fered with the findings of the learned Single Judge while deciding the Letters Patent Ap - peal filed by the petitioner company in that case, being LPA No. 51 of 1995. She further relied on the judgments of Gauhati High Court in the case of Abujam Amuba Singh v. State o1 Manipur & Ors., reported in 2000 LIC 498 and the Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. A.M. Jaialuddin v. Kerala Agricultural University reported in 2000 LIC 504 for the same proposition that the petitioner would be at a great disadvantage if the proceedings were recorded in English.
(3.) AS against this, learned Counsel for the respondent -company relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ravindra Umesh Gokarn & Ors. v. Guest Keen Williams Ltd. & Ors. reported in 1992 1 CLR 792 wherein the learned Judge (Srikrishna, J.) considered the Standing Orders and held that recording of the enquiry in English was wholly justified as the defense representative in that case knew English and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the workman as the enquiry was conducted in Hindi but the proceedings were recorded in English. The learned Counsel further relies on the judgment of the In - dustrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 631 of 1995, wherein the said M.L. Jha, the defense representative in this case, had been charge -sheeted and claimed that he had no knowledge of English and therefore, proceedings should be conducted and recorded in Hindi in the enquiry held against him. This has been negated by the Industrial Court after recording a finding that Jha was conversant with English and was able to translate the Standing Orders, which were in legal jargon, from English to Hindi. This order of the Industrial Court has not been challenged by Jha and, therefore, the finding of the Industrial Court regarding Jha 's knowledge about English has to be ac - cepted. Moreover, certain documents produced before me by learned Counsel for the respondent -company indicate that Jha had sufficient knowledge of English.;