TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (2) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dismissal passed against the respondent-employee. By the impugned Judgment, the Bombay High Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in refusing to give permission to the employer to lead evidence before the Tribunal in justification of the order of dismissal. 3. Mr. Pai, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that such permission has been refused by the Tribunal by indicating that although the enquiry was properly held, the finding in such enquiry was perverse and in such circumstances, no opportunity to lead evidences should be given. Such view according to Mr. Pai is not justified inasmuch as it has been held in Management of Ritz. Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1962)IILLJ498bSC that even w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n that the right of the employer to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, for the first time since recognised by this Court in its various earlier decisions, has been taken away by Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been accepted. It has been indicated in the said decision that there is no indication in Section 11A that such right has been abrogated. It has also been held that if the Intention of the legislature was to do away with such right which has been recognised over a long period of time as noticed in the decisions referred to earlier Section 11A would have been differently worded. This Court has observed that admittedly there are no express words to that effect and there is no indication that the Section 11A has impli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n relation to the water under consideration was not accepted by this Court by placing reliance on the reasonings indicated in the decision in Firestone Rubber Company case. 7. A domestic enquiry may be vitiated either for non-compliance of rules of natural justice or for perversity. Disciplinary Action taken on the basis of a vitiated enquiry does not stand on a better footing than a disciplinary action with no enquiry. The right of the employer to adduce evidence in both the situations is well-recognised. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. (1965) IILLJ162SC , State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain Delhi Cloth General Mill Co. Ltd....