- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by the Labour Court, Meerut, on 22-6-1968, rejecting the petitioner's application for production of additional evience.
(2.) The petitioner is a Public Limited Company. It carries on the business of manufacture and sale of paper. It had employed Chandu Ram, respondent No. 2, as a Moulder Mazdoor in its factory. On certain allegations of misconduct, the management of the petitioner Company served a charge-sheet on respondent No. 2 on 11th February, 1966. The Assistant Labour Officer held a domestic enquiry into the charges and submitted a report on 20th June, 1966, that the charges were established. Consequently, respondent No. 2 was dismissed by an order passed on 2nd July,1966. In due course, the dispute whether the dismissal of respondent No. 2 was justified, was referred, by the State Government for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act.
(3.) Before the Labour Court, the parties filed their pleadings, issues were framed and evidence was adduced. Arguments were heard on 8th June, 1966, and then the case was adjourned to 15th June, 1966. On that date, the arguments appear to have concluded, except that the employer wanted to show some authorities on certain points involved in the arguments. 22nd June, 1968, was fixed for further hearing. On that date, the petitioner Company moved an application, stating that it was argued on behalf of the workman that the charge-sheet was vague inasmuch as the particulars of indiscipline were not given and, though the case of the management is that the charge-sheet was valid and a fair and proper enquiry was conducted, yet, if the court holds otherwise, the management is prepared to produce all the evidence in the court. In paragraph 9 of that application, it was stated that after it has been finally held by the court that the enquiry was unfair and principles of natural justice were violated, an opportunity should be given to the management to supply the particulars of the charges to the workmen in the Court, and the management should be allowed an opportunity to produce all its evidence before the court in respect of the charges. The application ended with the statement that the management had such a right and reserved it in case the court held that the enquiry was unfair for want of particulars or otherwise.;