https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156468 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. en-us Fri, 22 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156468 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Feb 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156468