Jai Singh Sekhon, J. - (1.) THE main controversy in this writ petition preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is, "whether the Labour Court was bound to afford an opportunity to the Management for leading evidence in order to prove the charges against the workman after it has found the domestic enquiry to be defective for non -compliance with the rules of natural justice." The factual matrix of the case is that Shri Lekh Raj Suri -Respondent No. 2 used to work as Receipt Clerk in the Stores Department of the Petitioner -Mill. His services were terminated after holding domestic enquiry on the following charges: (i) That on or about 1 -8 -1979, Shri Suri approached M/s. Ravsons, Mani Majra at his residence asking him to meet him personally outside the Mills to obtain undue favour or advantage from him. (ii) That Shri Suri demanded Rs. 1,000/ - from the above party on the point of holding his bills or rejecting his supply of wood to the Mills. (iii) That on 9 -8 -1979, Shri Suri in connivance with Shri Ishar Singh, Gate Clerk manipulated the weightment Slip by changing the weight from 116.70 Quintals to 146.70 Quintals. (iv) That on 3rd August, 1979 and 6th August, 1979 Shri Suri obtained fictitious bills on threat from the above party for a truck each of fire wood alleged to have been received in the Mills on the same day and for this purpose he in connivance with Shri Ishar Singh fabricated the necessary entries in the bills.
(2.) THE second charge was found to have not been proved by the Enquiry Officer, Aggrieved against the said order, the workman successfully sought reference to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Presiding Officer Labour Court, Patiala, vide its order dated 24th July, 1985 ordered the reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and full back wages on the ground that the principles of natural justice were not followed while conducting the domestic enquiry inasmuch as the workman was not supplied with a copy of confessional statement made by Ishar Singh Gate Clerk during the enquiry proceedings and that not to speak of producing Ishar Singh as a witness against him he was not allowed to cross -examine any witness.
(3.) IT appears that the Management did not press the application dated 26/27th March, 1984 moved earlier to lead evidence on the merits of the case, if it was found that the enquiry was defective. That is why the Presiding Officer Labour Court had passed the above referred order without referring to this application. Subsequently, on 14th August, 1985 the Management filed another application before the Labour Court for permission to lead evidence on merits of the case. The application was rejected by the Labour Court vide its order dated 7th January, 1986 (copy Annexure P - -6) by holding that the application for leading evidence on merits of the case having been made after a lapse of four years and such right having not been reserved in the written statement would result in great miscarriage of justice. It was further held that this application was not pressed by the Management during the course of argument when the award was given on 24th July, 1985. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court also came to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain such application after giving the award, as apparently he has become functus officio The observations of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors. : A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 289, were relied upon in support of the proposition that the Management cannot file an application to lead evidence on merits of the case if it has not reserved its rights to do so in the written statement.;