- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry conducted was not fair and the learned lower court, by the impugned order dated 4th April,2008, in Reference Case No.30/97 , has come to a finding that the enquiry report was fair and proper without considering the evidences available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to place his case in the enquiry and the impugned award is bad and perverse. He has relied upon a judgment in the case of Scooter India Ltd. Lucknow vs. Labour Court, Lucknow, 1989 AIR(SC) 149.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Management has submitted that in spite of finding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was fair and proper, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has looked into the entire evidences available on record and dealt with the case of both the parties at length before coming to a finding that the termination of the petitioner was in accordance with law and he is not entitled to get any relief. He has also relied upon a judgment in the case of Amrit vanaspati Co. Ltd. vs. Khem Chand, 2006 6 SCC 325, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if there is a finding that the domestic enquiry is fair and proper, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employer.;