Natural justice in domestic enquiries: tribunal may require corroboration and findings exonerating workmen need not be disturbed.

A domestic disciplinary enquiry was held vitiated where managerial officers acted as both accusers and adjudicators, witnesses were not first examined to lay a proper evidentiary foundation, and the workmen were denied a fair opportunity to test the material by cross-examination. The Industrial Tribunal was entitled to insist on corroboration in an old, fact-sensitive dispute involving multiple persons and delayed recollection; Section 134 of the Evidence Act does not bar such prudence. The Tribunal's exoneration of the workmen was not interfered with because its credibility findings rested on the absence of a proper enquiry and on uncorroborated or conflicting evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the domestic enquiry held against the workmen was vitiated for breach of natural justice. (ii) Whether the Industrial Tribunal was bound to accept uncorroborated testimony and erred in requiring corroboration before acting on the evidence against the workmen. (iii) Whether the Tribunal's findings exonerating the concerned workmen called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the domestic enquiry held against the workmen was vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The enquiry was conducted by managerial officers who themselves acted in the role of accusers and adjudicators, without examining witnesses in support of the charges before questioning the workmen. The charged workmen were not given a fair opportunity to know and challenge the evidence against them by cross-examination, and no proper evidentiary foundation was laid before the enquiry proceeded.

Conclusion: The enquiry was rightly held to be vitiated by breach of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the Industrial Tribunal was bound to accept uncorroborated testimony and erred in requiring corroboration before acting on the evidence against the workmen.

Analysis: The Tribunal adopted a cautious approach because the incident was old, involved many persons, and depended on recollection of events after a long lapse of time. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not compel acceptance of any particular number of witnesses, but it does not prevent a fact-finder from requiring corroboration as a prudent method of evaluating evidence in such circumstances.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did not err in insisting on corroboration and its approach was proper.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal's findings exonerating the concerned workmen called for interference.

Analysis: For the individual workmen, the Tribunal found that the employer's case rested on no proper enquiry and, in the special cases, on uncorroborated or conflicting testimony. The Supreme Court declined to reappreciate evidence where the Tribunal had already assessed credibility and factual sufficiency on the materials before it.

Conclusion: No ground for interference with the Tribunal's findings was made out.

Final Conclusion: The award in favour of the workmen was sustained and the employer's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A domestic disciplinary enquiry must afford a fair opportunity to meet the evidence relied upon, and in a fact-sensitive industrial dispute the fact-finder may prudently insist on corroboration without offending the rule that no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact.

---