Natural justice in disciplinary enquiries requires confronting the employee with adverse evidence before dismissal is sustained.

An industrial tribunal jurisdiction objection under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act failed because it was not raised before the tribunal and lacked the factual foundation needed to question the member's qualification. The dismissal also failed on merits because the employer's enquiry breached natural justice: adverse witnesses were not examined in the workman's presence, their statements were not shown to him, and he was not given a fair opportunity to meet the evidence. The defect could have been cured only by producing the witnesses before the adjudicatory forum, which the employer did not do. The award was sustained and compensation was confined to the amount already deposited.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Industrial Tribunal was incompetent under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; (ii) Whether the dismissal was justified where the employer's enquiry did not comply with the principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the Industrial Tribunal was incompetent under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Analysis: The objection to the tribunal's competence was not raised before the tribunal, and the facts necessary to determine the member's qualification were not investigated there. The record showed that the tribunal member was an Additional District & Sessions Judge, and he might have satisfied the statutory qualifications in one of the alternative ways. A jurisdictional objection of this kind could not be permitted for the first time in appeal without the necessary factual foundation.

Conclusion: The objection to the tribunal's competence failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the dismissal was justified where the employer's enquiry did not comply with the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The enquiry was found defective because the witnesses against the workman were not examined in his presence, copies of their statements were not shown to him, and the recorded statements were not read out to him before he was asked to question them. The principles of natural justice require that a party be given the opportunity to know and meet the evidence used against him, including cross-examining adverse witnesses where the statutory setting demands it. The defect could have been cured by producing the witnesses before the tribunal, but the employer produced only the recorded statements and did not make the witnesses available for cross-examination.

Conclusion: The dismissal was not justified and the tribunal's finding of procedural unfairness was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the tribunal's award was sustained, and the compensation was confined to the amount already deposited, with each side bearing its own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary enquiry that fails to confront the employee with the adverse evidence and deny an opportunity to meet it violates natural justice, and a procedural defect may be cured only if the employer later produces the relevant witnesses and evidence before the adjudicatory tribunal.

---