Wed. Sep 23rd, 2020

Mehar Singh vs Cement Manufactures Association on 10 September, 2015

2 min read

1. Mehar Singh was working as a Driver with the management since
September 01, 1982 when he was charge-sheeted on March 05, 1997 on the
allegation that on February 16, 1997 he was driving the company’s car under
the influence of liquor and had hit a Maruti car. In the enquiry conducted
Mehar Singh was found guilty of the charges. Taking into account his past
conduct his services were terminated with effect from November 17, 1997.
2. In the industrial dispute raised Mehar Singh challenged the validity of
the enquiry on three grounds i.e. he was not allowed to be represented by a
lawyer of his choice, enquiry officer was biased and enquiry report was
perverse. Mehar Singh in his claim admitted that though he was not
permitted to engage an advocate of his choice or an office bearer of the
Delhi Labour Union, however he had engaged one Shri Mukesh to represent

him. It was the case of Mehar Singh that Mukesh being middle-passed and
not aware of the technicalities was not able to cross-examine the witnesses
affectively. Referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court the Tribunal
held that it was not necessary to provide an advocate to the charged officer
particularly when the management was also not represented by an advocate.
Further enquiry proceedings revealed that the charged officer had cross-
examined the management witnesses himself and had also examined himself
in defence during the enquiry proceedings. Referring to the evidence it was
noted that the present was not a case of no evidence and no bias could be
demonstrated by the charged officer against the enquiry officer and the
enquiry being not perverse having followed principles of natural justice, the
claim petition was dismissed. The order dated August 21, 2007 passed by
the Labour Court was upheld by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned
order dated July 28, 2009.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply