# CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD v. KARUNAMOY BANERJEE

- **Citation:** [1968] 1 S.C.R. 251
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-08-18
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatijllah, C. A. Vaidialingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/central-bank-of-india-ltd-v-karunamoy-banerjee-4115
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Industrial
DiSp!Jte-Domestic
Enquiry-Emplot1ee
admitting
charges and pleading extenuating Circumstances-Examining him
before other witnesses and asking him questions whether violative
of natural justice.
The respondent who .was an
employee of. the appellant bank
was charged with issuing unauthorised overdrafts to a constituent.
A domestic enquiry 'Nas held against him. In two written explanations before the enquiry he admitted• the allegations against hfm
and. only pleaded extenuating
circumstances. At the enquiry he
was examined in the first instance; havin~ again admitted his fault
he· W'as asked certain questions by the Enquiry Officer in respect
of the extenuating
circumstances pleaded by him. Two more
witnesses were then
examined by the Enquiry Officer. Finallv,
according to the latter's report the respondent was discharged. In
proceedings under s: 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute.• Act, 1947
the Labour Court, Dhanbad held that the enquiry was bad for violation .of natural justice inasmuch as the respondent had 1:een
examined before other witnesses and was unduly cross-examined.
The bank .appealed by special leave.
Held: The rules of natural justice as laid down by this Court
have. to be observed in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a
workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management; and the witnesses called by the management must be allowed
to be cross-examined. by the workman and . the latter must also be
given an opportunitv to examine himse If and adduce any other
evidence that he might choose. in support of his plea. Bqt if the
workman admits his ~ui!t, to insist upon the management to let In
evidence about the allegations will be an empty formality. In such
a case it will be open to the management to examine the workman
himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any
explanation for his con.duct, or to place tefore .the management any
circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of .the offence.
But, even• then; • the examination of the workman. under such circumstances, should not savour of an inquisition. If, after the examination . of the workman the management chooses to examine any
witnesses, the workman must be given a reasonable opportunity to
cr~xamine . those witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence
that he may choose. [2590-F]
· · Iii the present case the respondent in his written explanations
had admitted the charges and therefore there was no violation of
natural justice In first examining him. The questions put· to him
were not unfair. The Labour Court was W'l'ong in not giving approval to his discharge. [258F; 259A, G]
.
AssOciiited Cement Co. Ltd.,. v. Workman [1964] 3 S C.R. 652,
distinguished.
. ·
St!'jlwboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gob!nd, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
618, referred to.
·
281
'2li2
S1Jl'REME COURT llEPORTS
(1968) 1 S.C.R.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
'
&
a
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD.
v.
KARUNAMOY BANERJEE
August 18, 1967
[M. HIDAYATIJLLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Industrial
DiSp!Jte-Domestic
Enquiry-Emplot1ee
admitting
charges and pleading extenuating Circumstances-Examining him
before other witnesses and asking him questions whether violative
of natural justice.
The respondent who .was an
employee of. the appellant bank
was charged with issuing unauthorised overdrafts to a constituent.
A domestic enquiry 'Nas held against him. In two written explanations before the enquiry he admitted• the allegations against hfm
and. only pleaded extenuating
circumstances. At the enquiry he
was examined in the first instance; havin~ again admitted his fault
he· W'as asked certain questions by the Enquiry Officer in respect
of the extenuating
circumstances pleaded by him. Two more
witnesses were then
examined by the Enquiry Officer. Finallv,
according to the latter's report the respondent was discharged. In
proceedings under s: 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Dispute.• Act, 1947
the Labour Court, Dhanbad held that the enquiry was bad for violation .of natural justice inasmuch as the respondent had 1:een
examined before other witnesses and was unduly cross-examined.
The bank .appealed by special leave.
Held: The rules of natural justice as laid down by this Court
have. to be observed in the conduct of a domestic enquiry against a
workman. If the allegations are denied by the workman the burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the management; and the witnesses called by the management must be allowed
to be cross-examined. by the workman and . the latter must also be
given an opportunitv to examine himse If and adduce any other
evidence that he might choose. in support of his plea. Bqt if the
workman admits his ~ui!t, to insist upon the management to let In
evidence about the allegations will be an empty formality. In such
a case it will be open to the management to examine the workman
himself, even in the first instance, so as to enable him to offer any
explanation for his con.duct, or to place tefore .the management any
circumstances which will go to mitigate the gravity of .the offence.
But, even• then; • the examination of the workman. under such circumstances, should not savour of an inquisition. If, after the examination . of the workman the management chooses to examine any
witnesses, the workman must be given a reasonable opportunity to
cr~xamine . those witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence
that he may choose. [2590-F]
· · Iii the present case the respondent in his written explanations
had admitted the charges and therefore there was no violation of
natural justice In first examining him. The questions put· to him
were not unfair. The Labour Court was W'l'ong in not giving approval to his discharge. [258F; 259A, G]
.
AssOciiited Cement Co. Ltd.,. v. Workman [1964] 3 S C.R. 652,
distinguished.
. ·
St!'jlwboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gob!nd, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
618, referred to.
·
281
'2li2
S1Jl'REME COURT llEPORTS
(1968) 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 440. of
A
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated May 30, 1964
of the Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad in Application No. L.P. 123 of 1962.
H. R. Gokhale, C. L. Ohopra, P. C. Bhartari, and O. C.
B
Mathur, for the appellant.
Janardan Sharma, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the
appellant Bank, is directed against the order, dated May 13, 1964,
of the Central Labour Court. Dhanbad. rejecting an application.
filed by the Bank, under s. 33(2)(b), .of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). and declining to grant approval of the action taken, by the· Bank, by way
of discharging the respondent-workman, from the Bank"s services.
The respondent was, at the material time, the Assistant Ac·
countant, at the main Office of the Bank, at Calcutta. In view
of certain serious irregularities, noticed by the. Bank, in respect
of the work of the respondent in the 1Current Accounts Department and, in particular, in current account ledgers Nos. 4 and 6.
by order dated March 8, 1961, the respondent was suspended,
with immediate effect.
He was also
informed t~at the charges
against him would be communicated, in due course.
By a further communication, dated March 13/14, 1961, the
respondent was required to offer his explanation, in respect of
four allegations made in the
said
communication.
The main
allegations were that, in respect of ledger accounts Nos. 4 and· 6,
standing in. the names of Messrs. Commercial Bureau and Messers
Evergreen Paper Syndicate and Me~srs. Gokul Chand Radharam,
respectively, overdrafts had been
allowed, by the respondent.
from time to time, without obtaining the sanction of the authorities competent to allow overdrafts.
The other allegations were
to the effect that the respondent, who was charged with the duty
of supervising both these ledgers. did not bring to the notice of
the authorities the said irregularities, that must have come to his
knowledge, and that the pass book of ledger No. 4 was missing.
The respondent sent a reply, dated March 17, 1961, wherein he
has admitted that, in the course of discharge of his routine duties
and responsibilities, in good faith and honestly, he had granted
overdrafts to the parties referred to, by the Bank, temporarily, in
excess of their credits or limits, without reference to the higher
authorities. He also admitted that it was a blunder on his part
and that he should not have done so.
He offered 'an explanation
to the effect that he was led to believe in the credit-worthiness of
the individuals. because of their long association with the Bank
and also beca1ise of the fact that, on prior <><;casioos. overdrafts
c
D
B
,
G
B
-1
'
i
;
A
B
c
D
E
CENTRAL BANK
~. KARUNAllOY (Vaidialingam, J.)
253.
had been granted to them, in excess of permissible limits. He
also stated that the Bank had not been put to any financial loss
because of his having granted the overdrafts; but, he again ad'
milted his negligence, in not strictly abiding by the Bank's rules,
when he made the overdrafis. \He, however, added that his conduct had always been guided by good faith and honesty. This
was the answer, regarding the main allegations, contained in the
Bank's letter, dated March 13/)4, 1961. He also stated, regard'
ing the other minor allegations, that it was not his duty to report
about the debit balances. which was the function of the ledgerkeeper, and that he was not also responsible for the loss of the
pass book, of ledger No. 4. He wound-up his explanation
by stating that his conduct, in making the overdrafts, without obtaining the sanction of the higher authorities, was an omission
which had been, unfortunately, committed by him, and he expresed regret for the same and requested the management to excuse
him, accepting hi~ explanation.
The appellant Bank was not satisfied with the explanation
offered by the respondent, and communicated a charge-sheet, on
June 3, 1961. The main charges related to the overdrafts, paid
by the respondent, in ledger Nos. 4 and 6, without obtaining the
permission of the proper sanctioning authority. The Bank also
informed the respondent that he would be given a further opportunity to explain his conduct, in relation to those matters, and
defend himself in the enquiry which would be held by the Agent
of the Bank, on June 20, 1961, at 3.30 p.m.
The respondent again sent a reply, dated July II, 1961, to
the charge-sheet served on him.
In this reply also, he admitted
that, in the course of discharge of his routine duties and responsibilities, he had nllowed the parties, mentioned in the charge.sheet,
to overdraw, in excess of their credits, without reference to the
higher authorities, and that it was a blunder on his part which he
F
should not have committed. But, he again reiterated that he, in
good faith and bona fide, was led to believe about the credit-worthiness of the parties, who had long association, with the Bank. He
also emphasized, here again, that the Bank had not been put to
any financial loss, because of his conduct. He again admitted
that this act of permitting the parties concerned to overdraw, in
excess of· their limits, without reference to the sanctioning authoG
rities, amounted to negligence, but his conduct was perfectly bona
fide and honest. He also offered explanation, on the minor allegations, to the effect that it was the duty of the ledger-keeper tci.
give the figures regarding the overdrafts and that he had not done
any mis-reporting to the higher authorities. Finally he made a
plea tha~ he .had been serving the institution for over 20 years
H
without any blemish, and the unfortunate omission, done by
him, in the matter of not taking the sanction of the higher authorities, might be excused, accepting his expression of regret
L/85801-3
254
SUPlll!llE COURT REPORTS
[1968] I s.o.R.
The inquiry proceedings (conducted by the Agent, who was
A
the Inquiry Officer), produced before the Labour Court, shows
that the respondent was examined in the first instance. After
eliciting answers regarding the duration of his employment, in the
Institution, and as to the nature of the work he was discharging,
he was asked about the charge-sheet served on him, as well as the
explanation, furnished by him. The respondent has categorically
B
answered to the effect that he has
understood the charge-sheet
and that he does not want to add anything more to the explana·
tion that he has already submitted. This · answer must have
reference to the explanation, furnished by him, on June 20, 1961,
in answer to the charge-sheet, wherein he has admitted his mis·
take in sanctioning the overdrafts, to the parties concerned, with·
out obtaining the sanction of the appropriate authorities. But,
C
inasmuch as he has stated, in his explanation, that on prior occa·
p
sions also overdrafts have been allowed beyond the permissible
limits, certain questions were put to him, in respect of those mat·
ters. The respondent, no doubt, appears to have stated that
some of the cheques, issued to the parties concerned, have been
initialled by an Officer of the Bank, Mr. Bhatena. The respon·
dent, again, s_quarely admitted, in his answers, that he has com·
D
mitted a blunder in granting advances, on his own responsibility,
of about Rs. 87,000. He has also admitted that he did not make
any reference to the Agent, when passing the cheques, regarding
the accounts of Messrs. Evergreen Paper Syndicate or Messrs.
Ookul Chand Radharam.
During the course of the inquiry, the respondent was allowed
E
to search the records concerned, and trace, if possible, any che·
ques that may have been initialled by Mr. Bhatena, and no such
cheque could be traced. Inasmuch as three other officers, whose
conduct was being enquired into, had made certain statements
against the respondent, the latter was asked as to whether he
wanted to examine, or cross-examine those persons; and the res·
pondent very clearly stated that he did not like to cross-exmine
r
anybody.
The Management then examined Mr. Bhatena and Mr.
Savkar, two Officers of the Bank, in the presence of the respon·
dellt. It is also seen that the respondent has also put certain
que~tions to those two witnesses; and he has also stated that he
has no further questions to be put to them. At the conclusion of
the recording of the evidence, it is seen
tha~ the respondent
finally made an appeal to the Enquiring Officer to consider his
case sympathetically, at the same time admitting his a_cts of omission, in the discharge of his duties. He has also expre5sed his
gratitude for the patient hearing that has been given to him dur·
ing the inquiry.
. The Enquiry Officer, in his report, dated November 10, 1961,
bas, after referring to the nature of the enquiry conducted by him,
G
B
A
B
c
D
E
F
CENTRAL BANK v. KARUNillOY (Vaidialingani, J.)
255
found the respondent guilty of the main charges of having permitted the parties concerned, to obtain overdrafts, beyond· the permissible lbnits, without having obtained the sanction of the appro·
priate authorities. In this connection, the
Enquiry Officer has
referred to the fact that these allegations have been admitted by
the respondent. Regarding the other minor allegations, that the
respondent caused other officers to record debit balances incorrectly, and the loss of the pass book relating to ledger No. 4, the respondent was exonerated. The Enquiry Officer was of the view
that the offence committed by the respondent, of which he had
been found guilty, was very serious which merited dismissal; but,
in view of the long number of years of service put in by the respondent and as no loss has resulted to the Bank itself, he held
that the respondent should be discharged from service.
The Bank communicated the order of discharge, by its letter,
dated June 27, 1962, enclosing a pay-order for Rs. 472.70 being
the wages for one month, viz.. July 1962. The respondent, who
had a right to file an appeal, against this order of discharge, based
upon the finding of the Enquiry Officer, does not appear to have
had recourse to any appeal, but, on the other hand, filed a representation, dated July 11, 1962, before the Managing Director of
the appellant Bank. Even in this representation, he has not, in
any manner, attacked the enquiry proceedings, nor the findings
recorded by the Enquiry Officer.
On the other hand, he again
admitted his fault in having permitted overdrafts, to the parties
concerned, ·without obtaining the sanction of the appropriate
authorities after expressing regret for his conduct.
He also stated
that the Bank had not suffered any financial loss, because of his
conduct.
Having due regard to these circumstances, he made a
plea for mercy being shown to him, by cancelling the order of discharge and permitting him to resume his duties in the Bank. The
Managing Director, by his communication, dated September 17,
1962, rejected the representation made by the respondent, and
declined to reinstate him in the Bank's service.
In the meanwhile, inasmuch as an industrial dispute was
pending before the National Industrial Tribunal, the appellant r.ad
filed an application, before the said Tribunal, on March 17,
I 962, under s. 33(2) of the Act, seeking approval of the action
G
ta ken against the respondent, on the basis of the recommendation
of the Enquiry Officer.
This application was transferred to the
Central Government Labour Court, Dhanbad, on April J 8, 1962.
In the objections, dated September 2, 1963, filed by the respondent, before the Labour Court, for the first time he raised the pica
that in view of the advice given by the officers of the Bank, he
H
sent replies admitting his guilt regarding the allegations made
against him, by the Bank. He also raised the plea that the overdrafts, that were given by him, to the parties concerned, were
L.'S5SCI-3(•)
2'56
SU1'REME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 1 s.c.R.
really due to oral orders given by the then Agent and the SuperinA
tendent, on telephone. He also raised the plea that he was not
allowed to represent his case through the Union, before the Enquiry Ofiicer, nor was he allowed to cross-examine the persons
making allegations against him.
We have elaborately referred to the matters, mentioned
above, because the qi!estion, that arises for consideration, in this
appeal, is as to the correctness of the view of the Labour Court,
that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Bank, as against the
respondent, is not fair and that principles of natural justice have
been violated. The Labour Court, by its order under attack,
has held that the domestic enquiry, conducted by the Bank, is not
proper and that rules of natural justice have not been observed;
and, in consequence, it has declined to grant the approval, sought
for. by the Bank.
At this stage, it may be mentioned that the Labour Court has
held in favour of the management, that it has complied with the
proviso to s. 33(2)(b) of the Act, as interpreted, by this Court, in
its decision in Strawboard Manufacturing Co. v. Gobind('). That
is, it has held that the action of the Bank, by way of discharge,
payment of wages and making of the application for approval,
have been taken as part of the same transaction. For coming to
the conclusion that the inquiry proceedings are violative of the
rules of natural justice, the Labour Court has given three reasons:
(i) in the inquiry, the respondent has been examined, even in the
first instance, and he was cross-examined, to elicit points in support of the charges; (ii) the respondent was not allowed to crossexamine witnesses; and (iii) the respondent was prejudiced, in his
defence, as he had t<J conduct his defence without the assistance
of the Union, during the enquiry.
There can be no controversy that the principles of natural
justice must be observed, in the conduct of a domestic enquiry,
and the workman, concerned, must be allowed reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
It has also been held, by this Court,
that rules of natural justice require that the workman, proceeded
against, should be informed clearly of the charges levelled against
him; witnesses should be normally examined in the presence of
the employee, in respect of the charges; if statementS, taken previously and given by witnesses, are relied on, they should be made
available to the workman concerned the
workman should be
given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses. including him-self,
in support of his defence; and the Enquiry Officer should record
his findings, based upon the evidence so adduced.
So far as grounds Nos. 2 and 3, given by the Labour Court,
are concerned, it is clear from the record of the enquiry proceedings, that the respondent was permitted to put questions to Mr.
Bhatena and Mr. Savkar, who were examined, during the enquiry.
(1) [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 618.
B
c
D
I!
p
G
H
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
0
B
.,
CENTRAL BANK v. KAllUNAKOY ( v iadialingam, J.)
2117
We have also referred to the fact that the Enquiry Officer has
recorded that the respondent has stated that he has no further
questions to be put to them. We have also referred to the fact
that the inquiry proceedings show that the respondent was specifically asked as to whether he wanted to examine or cross-examine
the three other Officers. whose conduct was also under enquiry,
arid who had made certain statements against the respondent; but
the respondent categorically stated that he did not like to examine
or cross-examine any of those persons. The respondent has not
stated, even in the representations made by him to the Managing
Director, that he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine
the witnesses produced in the inquiry. Again, even in his evidence
before the Labour Court, the
respondent has categorically
stated that he has not made any request. in writing, for being represented by the Union, at the inquiry. Apart from the fact
that he has no such right, even factually it is seen that he made no
such· request. Therefore the findings of the Tribunal that the
respondent was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses during the domestic enquiry. and that he was prejudiced in his
defence because he was not permitted to have the assistance of
the Union, are both erroneous.
Then the question is as to whether the inquiry proceedings
can be considered to have been conducted in violation of the rules
of natural justice, inasmuch as the respondent was examined,
even in the first instance. We have already indicated that, as a
fact, it is borne out by the records that the respondent, so far as
the inquiry against him was concerned, was examined, in the first
instance. and Mr. Bhatena and Mr. Savkar, were examined· later.
According to the Labour Court, the object of the management, in
examining the respondent, in the domestic enquiry even in the
first instance, was to have the charges substantiated by statements
got out of the mouth of the employee, rather than to examine
witnesses for the Bank, in support of the charges. It is the fur·
ther view of the Labour Court that the respondent has been, so
to say, cross-examined, just to elicit points in substantiation of the
charges. These circumstances, according to the Labour Court,
violate the principles of natural justice and, as such vitiate the
domestic enquiry.
In this connection,. the Labour Court has relied upon certain
observations, contained in the judgment of this Court in Associat·
ed Cement Co. Ltd .• v. Workmen(') viz.:
"It seems to us that it is not fair in domestic enquiries against industrial employees that at the very com·
mencement of the enquiry, the employee
should be
(1) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 652, 661.
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1968] l s.c.R.
closely cross.examined even before any other evidence
is led against him."
and draws the inference that under no circumstances should a
workman, whose conduct is the subject of disciplinary proceedings, by a domestic tribunal, should be examined, in the first instance.
We are of the opinion that no such conclusion could be
drawn from the decision, referred to above. In that case, it will
be seen, the management had charge-sheeted one Malak Ram, with
disorderly behaviour when a cinema. show was being given. Malak
Ram, at all stages, stoutly denied his having taken part in any
hooliganism or rowdyism, as alleged by the management. Under
those circumstances, instead of adducing evidence, in the first
instance, regarding the allegations made against Malak Ram, in
the domestic enquiry, the management commenced the proceedings, with a very close examination of Malak Ram himself. The
nature of the questions put to him also clearly indicated that the
worker was being cross-examined, and answers sought to be elicited in support of the allegations made by the management. This
Court, in coming to the conclusion that the conduct of an enquiry,
in that manner, constitutes a very serious infirmity, made the observations, quoted above. Therefore, it will be seen, that in that
case, when the workman concerned was totally denying the allegations made against him, it was the duty of the management to
let in evidence, in the first instance, to substantiate its allegations,
and permit the workman to cross-examine those witnesses and
also permit him to let in independent evidence, in defence of his
plea; and this Court emphasized that the normal rule to be
followed, in such enquiries, is, as stated above.
In the case before us, we have already referred to the various
proceedings that have taken place, from which it will be seen
clearly that the workman was, at all stages, admitting the truth of
the allegations made against him, by the management. In his
communication, dated March 17, 1961, as well as, in his reply,
to the charges, made by him on June 20, 1961, he has categorically admitted that he has committed a. mistake in permitting the
constituents concerned to overdraw, without obtainting the sanction of the appropriate authorities. Even when the enquiry proceedings began, he had stated that he had nothing more
to add, in respect of the charges framed against him. When once
the workman himself has, in answer to the charge levelled against
him, admitted his guilt, in our opinion, there will be nothing
more for the management to enquire into. That was the position
in the case before us. Therefore, we are not inclined to agree
with the reasoning of the Labour Court that when there has been
an admission of guilt, by the respondent himself, it can still be
stated that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice
merely because of the fact that the workman was examined, in
the first instance. Nor· are we impressed with the further view,
expressed by the Labour Court, that the way in which answers
A
B
c
D
B
F
'
G
B
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
Bj
CENTRAL BANK v. KARUNAMOY (Vaidialingam, J.)
259
were elicited from the workman, showed that ihere has been a
cross-examination, by the management, to obtain points in substantiation of the charges. We have gone through the entire
examination of the respondent at the domestic enquiry, and we
are satisfied that there is no such infirmity. In fact, the question
of the management trying to obtain answers to support the char·
ges, does not arise at all, in this case1 because the respondent has
consistently admitted his guilt, at all stages.
On the other hand,
the nature of the questions put to th~ respondent clearly indicate
that the manage111ent, when once the workman had admitted his
guilt, was only giving him an opportunity to explain his conduct
or to refer to circumstances, if any, which could be taken into
account in extenuation of his conduct. The management had
also permitted the respondent to put questions to the other two.
witnesses, examined during the enquiry. viz.. Mr. Bhatena and
Mr. Savkar.
We must, however, emphasize that the rules of natural justic~. as laid down by this Court, will have to be observed, in the
conduct of a domestic enquiry against a workman.
If the allegations are denied, by the workman, it is needless to state that the
burden of proving the truth of those allegations will be on the
management; and· the witnesses called, by the management, must
be allowed to be cross-examined, by the workman, and the latter
must also be given an opportunity to examine himself and adduce
any other evidence that he might choose, in support of his plea.
But, if the workman admits his guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence above the allegations, will, in our opinoin,
only be an empty formality. In such a case, it will be open to
the man~gement to examine the workman himself, even in the
first instance, so as to enable him to offer any explanation for his
conduct, or to place before the management any circumstances
which will go to mitigate the gravity of the offence. But, even
then, the examination of the workman, under such circumstances,
should not savour of an inquisition. If, after the examination of .
the workman, the management chooses to examine any witnesses,
the workman must be given a reasonable opportunity to crossexamine those witnesses and also to adduce any other evidence
that he may choose.
Having considered the enquiry proceedings, in its entirety,
in this case, we are satisfied that there has been no violation of the ,
rules of natural justice. Therefore, it follows that the order of
the Labour Court, refusing to grant approval, as asked for, by
the management, is erroneous and, as such, it is set aside. In the
result, the appeal is allowed; but parties will bear their own cosa
in this appeal.
G.C.
.Appeal allowed.