1961 (3) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pute between the appellant and two of its workmen. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The appellant framed charges against the two workmen involving gross negligence of duty and moral turpitude and two separate enquiries were held in the matter. The appellant came to the conclusion that the charges had been proved and the two employees should be dismissed. Thereafter it made....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the employees on the facts of this case were not given full and free opportunity to place their cases at the enquiry and therefore in the circumstances he was not prepared to grant the permission necessary under Section 33. It is this view which is being challenged in the present appeal. 2. The first employee concerned is Subba Raman. It appears that on the date of enquiry he appeared before t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. He therefore withdrew from the enquiry. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer carried on the enquiry ex prate and examined a large number of witnesses and found the charges proved against him. It was then decided to dismiss Seetharamiah and ask for permission to do so under Section 33. 4. The Commissioner of Labour has held that the refusal of the Enquiry Officer to permit counsel in one case and a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... further; one of them wanted to be represented through counsel while the other wanted to be represented through an outsider. Neither of them apparently wanted to be represented by somebody from the union. In view therefore of the decision in Kalindi's case we cannot agree that as a counsel or an outsider was not allowed to appear on behalf of the employees there was no fair or full enquiry in ....