- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. Heard Sri V. B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vijai Sinha appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri N. C. Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents No. 4 to 7 (workmen) and have perused the record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
(2.) AT the very outset learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that he does not wish to press this writ petition as against Respondent No. 4 Darshan Pal, as he claims that a settlement outside the Court has been arrived at between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 4. Hence, even without entering into the merits of the case, this writ petition stands dismissed with regard to the Respondent No. 4. The brief facts of this case are that on charges of misconduct, the services of Respondents No. 4 to 7 (workmen) were terminated vide orders dated 1-12-1993 passed by the employer (petitioner ). A dispute was raised by the workmen, which was referred by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal, Respondent No. 1. The Tribunal, vide its award dated 29-1-1998, held that the termination orders were illegal. Thus, after quashing the same, directions for reinstatement of the workmen alongwith back wages and the benefit of continuity of service were issued. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, this writ petition has been filed. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, no interference is called for with the impugned award.
(3.) FOR deciding the reference made to it, the Tribunal had framed two issues, namely, (1) whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the employer was fair and proper, and its effect ?; and (2) Whether copies of finding and enquiry report were not furnished to the workmen, and its effect ?. Both the issues were decided in favour of the workmen. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that once the Tribunal had held that the domestic enquiry was not proper, it was obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to give opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence to support the dismissal order. In support of such contention the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. A. B. Zodge, 1996 (2) LBESR 987 (SC) : (1996) 4 S. C. C. 374, wherein it has been held that in a case where the domestic enquiry was found to be bad, then prior to closure of the proceedings before the Tribunal, an opportunity to adduce evidence should be given on a suitable request for the same being made by the employer to the Tribunal. In the case before the Apex Court, undisputedly prior to the closure of the proceedings before the Tribunal, a specific prayer was made by the employer to lead evidence in support of the impugned order of dismissal and it was in such circumstances that denial of such opportunity to the employer was found to be unjustified.;