Ahmadi, J. - (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) The short question which falls for determination in this appeal is whether a delinquent is entitled to be represented by an office bearer of another Trade Union, who is not a member of either a recognised Union or a non-recognised Union functioning within the undertaking in which the delinquent is employed, notwithstanding the statutory limitation contained in the certified Standing Orders and clause (ii) of Section 22 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereafter called the Act). The High Court has answered this question in the affirmative on the following line of reasoning : ".......for the purpose of the domestic enquiry to be fair and impartial it is very much necessary that the delinquent workman be allowed to be represented by a person of his choice and if an employee is refused, such a fair opportunity of putting forward his case by a representative of his choice, even if the representative is an outsider, it could be well said that the principles of natural justice were violated. There is nothing in Section 22..... to deny such a basic and fundamental right to a workman. Section 22 only provides for the rights of an unrecognised Union. The Enquiry Officer in our case, therefore, violated the principles of natural justice in not allowing the petitioner to be defended by Talraja. If he has allowed to be defended by Talraja, no prejudice would have been caused to the third respondent (the appellant herein)." On the line of reasoning the High Court quashed the order of dismissal as violative of the principles of natural justice and remitted the matter to the Labour Court with a direction to permit both parties to adduce whatever evidence they may desire to place on record and decide on merits whether or not the misconduct alleged against the delinquent was proved.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the High Court, the original respondent No. 3, M/s. Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd., the employer, has preferred this appeal by special leave. The facts which we may notice for the disposal of this appeal are as under : The workman, Ram Naresh Tripathi, was charge-sheeted on November 29, 1980 for misconduct. A domestic enquiry was ordered and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the alleged acts of misconduct of the delinquent. The delinquent requested the Enquiry Officer to permit him to be defended by one Talraja who claimed to be an office bearer of the Bombay Mazdoor Union of which the delinquent was a member. The delinquent contended before the Enquiry Officer that the said Talraja was authorised to defend members of his Union at domestic enquiries but the Enquiry Officer did not permit the delinquent to be represented and defended by the said Talraja since he was not a member of the recognised Union or the unrecognised Union functioning in the employers establishment. Thereupon the delinquent did not participate in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry ex parte. That led to the ultimate dismissal of the delinquent by an order dated January 28, 1981. The delinquent thereupon filed a complaint (ULP) No. 33 of 1981 in the Labour Court, Bombay making a grievance that the employer was guilty of unfair labour practice enumerated at Item 1(f) of Schedule IV to the Act, in that, he was not allowed to be defended by a person of his own choice in violation of the principles of natural justice. Item 1(f) of Schedule IV deals with discharge or dismissal of employees in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of a domestic enquiry. The Labour Court relying on Section 22(ii) of the Act concluded that the delinquent was not entitled to be defended by Talraja who was not a member of either a recognised or a non-recognised Union functioning within the undertaking of the appellant-Company. The Labour Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the dismissal order did not suffer from any violation of the principles of natural justice and dismissed the complaint on June 30, 1982. The delinquent filed a Revision Application (ULP) No. 28 of 1982 in the Industrial Court, Bombay. The Industrial Court agreed with the view taken by the Labour Court and found no merit in the Revision Application and dismissed the same by its order dated June 14, 1983. Thereupon the delinquent moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, for the reasons extracted hereinabove, came to the conclusion that refusal to permit Talraja to defend the delinquent amounted to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 1(f) of Schedule IV to the Act as it violated the principles of natural justice. The High Court, therefore, quashed the judgments of the authorities below and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for disposal in accordance with law after permitting both the sides to adduce evidence on their behalf. The High Court directed the Labour Court to determine if the charges of misconduct levelled against the delinquent were proved on merits on the evidence that may be placed before it and to dispose of the complaint of unfair labour practice on the findings so recorded latest by the end of December, 1991. It is the correctness of this order of the High Court which is impugned in this appeal.;