S.N.BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal has been preferred against the order dt. 21.12.1989 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and upholding the order of the Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur, dated 6.12.1988, holding that the domestic enquiry held by the appellant against the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, is against the principles of natural justice, on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was not a person competent to hold enquiry in accordance with the Standing Orders of the appellant.
(2.) RESPONDENT Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were employed with the petitioner company and individual charge-sheets were served upon them. The appellant appointed Shri A.B.L. Bhargava Advocate as Enquiry officer, who held the domestic enquiry and gave his report on April 7, 1986, finding all the three respondents guilty of the charges. The appellant accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer decided to terminate their services with effect from 15.4.1986. Mazdoor Union, respondent No. 2, raised an industrial dispute with respect to termination of services of the above three workmen, which was referred u/s 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour Court, Jaipur. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the management (appellant) was fair, proper and he followed the principles of natural justice but it further held that the enquiry was invalid because the Enquiry Officer was not competent and qualified to be appointed as an Enquiry Officer as he was not an 'officer' of the appellant company and therefore, it was against the Standing Orders of the appellant. This order of the Labour Court was challenged by the appellant before, the learned Single Judge, by way of writ petition, which was dismissed, and hence, this special appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant has very vehemently submitted that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 appeared before the Enquiry Officer and they did not raise any objection regarding his appointment as an Enquiry, officer, therefore, they should be deemed to have acquiesced and waived this objection, having surrendered to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court could not raise this point before the Labour Court. In this connection, he has placed reliance on M/s. Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India (1), Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi (2), Divakaran v. Circle Inspector of Police Munnar (3), Syed Hassan Ali v. State of Mysore (4), Nanjundappa v. State of Mysore (5) and A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak (6). He has further submitted that the Standing Orders envisage only an 'officer'. He need not be an officer serving in the company. The word 'officer' means, an officer appointed to enquire i.e. Enquiry Officer. The court cannot add or subtract some words in the legislation or the standing orders and in this connection, reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant on, Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar (7), Ram Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh(8) and British India General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Captain Itbar Singh (9). Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that similar provisions have been interpreted by the courts, including the Supreme Court and appointment of an Advocate as an Enquiry Officer had been upheld. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Sridharan Motor Service, Attur v, Industrial Tribunal, Madras (10), Diwan Badri Das v. Industrial Tribunal (11), Saran Motors (Private) Ltd., New Delhi v. Vishwanath(12), M/s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., v. Shri Murari Lal Bikaneria (13), The Management of Sri Siva-sakti Bus Service v. P. Gopal (14), Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Their Workmen (15) and Narendra Pratap v. Jagmohan Bharti (16).
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has supported the judgment of the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge, and has placed reliance on D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration (17) and has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, should not interfere with the findings of the Labour Court, because the company may well afford to wait to the detriment of the labour, who can ill-afford to wait for the implementation of the orders of the Labour Court. He has further placed reliance on Workmen of Food Corporation of India v. Food Corporation of India (18) and has further submitted that no employer, since the introduction of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and contrary to the certified Standing Orders, can dispense with the services of any workman without complying with the law in force. Any termination of service contrary to the provisions of the Standing Orders and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, would be void. He has also placed reliance on The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. The Management 19). Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has further submitted that the appellant cannot be allowed to take new pleas which were not raised before the learned Single Judge, and in this connection, he has placed reliance on Munna Lal v. Suraj Bhan (20). ;