https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186295 Under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, approval could not be refused merely because passengers were not examined or because the misconduct was tested as if in a criminal trial. The Tribunal's role was confined to seeing whether a prima facie case existed and whether the domestic enquiry suffered from perversity or breach of natural justice. In domestic enquiries, strict Evidence Act rules do not apply and proof is assessed on preponderance of probabilities. Circumstantial and documentary material, including the severity of the accident and res ipsa loquitur, supported the inference of rash and negligent driving, so the refusal of approval was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 May 2024 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186295 Under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, approval could not be refused merely because passengers were not examined or because the misconduct was tested as if in a criminal trial. The Tribunal's role was confined to seeing whether a prima facie case existed and whether the domestic enquiry suffered from perversity or breach of natural justice. In domestic enquiries, strict Evidence Act rules do not apply and proof is assessed on preponderance of probabilities. Circumstantial and documentary material, including the severity of the accident and res ipsa loquitur, supported the inference of rash and negligent driving, so the refusal of approval was unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186295