- (1.) Leave granted. The appellant is challenging the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the appellant against some of its workmen and in the preliminary enquiry, the workmen were found guilty and punishment was imposed on them. Aggrieved by the decision, the workmen moved the 8th Industrial Tribunal by way of Reference and before the Industrial Tribunal the workmen contended that the enquiry was not conducted properly and there was serious violation of principles of natural justice. This argument, was based on the fact that the workmen during the course of the enquiry, sought the assistance of a lawyer to help them in the enquiry proceedings and this plea was rejected by the enquiry officer and thereafter the workmen did not participate in the enquiry and later the enquiry officer decided against the workmen.
(2.) Before the Industrial Tribunal, the workmen had urged that the Presenting Officer was an experienced Personnel Manager and the /workmen, being illiterate, were not in a position to defend the charges leveled against them and they should have been given the assistance of a lawyer. The management contended that the Presenting Officer was not a duly trained or experienced person in law and there were also no rules or regulations to the effect that the workmen in such type of enquiry would be entitled to get the assistance of a lawyer. The Tribunal held that the management was represented by a trained prosecutor and he was well conversant with the industrial disputes and other matters and the workers being rustic urdu knowing persons were entitled to be represented by a lawyer and as this facility was not afforded to them, and thus there was. violation of principles of natural justice and the enquiry proceedings were quashed and the employer was given a chance to prove the charge afresh by adducing fresh evidence before the Tribunal on merits.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition being W.P.15195(W)/2003. The learned single Judge was pleased to pass the interim orders dated 21.04.2004 in terms of prayers (e) & (f) thereof and in effect stayed the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent herein filed a separate application for recall of that order. The learned Judge dismissed the recall application confirming his earlier passed stay orders. The respondent, therefore, filed an appeal being MAT 3501/2004 before the Division Bench. However, the Division Bench in that appeal (limited against the stay order) disposed of the writ petition itself as the parties consented to address both on appeal and writ petition. The Division Bench thus went into the merits of the orders passed by the Tribunal and took the view that the finding returned by the Tribunal was a finding of fact and as such even if the High Court was of the different opinion, the said finding could not be interfered with particularly when it was not a perverse finding. On this, the appeal as well as the writ petition were disposed of and the Tribunal was requested to expedite the hearing within a period of one year from the date. This judgment of the High Court is challenged before us. We have heard appellant's counsel and also counsel for the respondents.;