P. K. BANERJEE, CJ. - (1.) IN this rule,the petitioner workman has challenged an order passed by the Labour Court under Section 33 (2) (b) of the INdustrial Disputes Act.
(2.) THE petitioner was a workman under the Factory Manager, Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd, Bhilwara. A conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act was pending with the Tribunal and due to that, an approval for the dismissal of the petitioner had to be taken by the Factory Manager under Section 33 (2) (b) of the said Act. A proceeding was initiated and charges were framed against the petitioner. After the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer, the company sought to dismiss the petitioner and approval was taken under Section 33 (2) (b ). Against the according of the approval by the Tribunal, the petitioner has moved this Court and obtained the present rule. Mr. Mridul on behalf of the petitioner contended that the enquiry was vitiated, rustle, on the ground that Company the lawyer was assisting the complainant Mr. H. R. Jain and the petitioner when applied for the assistance, was not allowed the legal assistance. Secondly, it was contended that in passing the order of dismissal, the past record of the petitioner was considered, without giving the details of the past record to the petitioner and thirdly, it was contended that the copy of the statements made behind the back of the petitioner were never supplied to the petitioner at the time of cross-examination of the witnesses. Mr. Mathur appearing for the respondent sought to contend that the lawyer was an officer of the company. In my opinion, on this point itself, approval of the order of dismissal could not have been accorded. It is not necessary for the person who is appearing before the enquiry officer to be a full-fledged lawyer but even if it is found that he has a training in law, it does not make any difference whether he is employee of the company or not. in such circumstances, the enquiry officer ought to have allowed the employee to have the assistance of a lawyer. Secondly, it is clear, and Mr. Mathur contended, that the recorded statement was read over at the time when the evidence was given. It is clear, the petitioner even tried to take record of the evidence and thereafter cross-examine the witnesses, but even that was not allowed. It is well known, the rules of natural justice must be said to have been violated, unless the recorded statement is given to the petitioner when this recorded statement is being used against him and unless he is allowed to cross-examine the witnesses on the basis of the recorded statement taken behind the back of the petitioner. Therefore, on this score also, the enquiry report cannot stand. Therefore, on these grounds hereinbefore stated, the order of the Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Bhilwara, according approval of petitioner's dismissal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be sustained and must be set aside which I hereby do. Therefore, as the conciliation proceedings were pending at the relevant time, the order of dismissal has no legs to stand upon. The rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. .;