9. The learned Single Judge has next found fault with the manner in which the Officer presiding over CGIT formulated issue No.2. After referring to two reported decisions of learned Single Judge, Dhanuka J. of our High Court as he then was in E.Merck (I) Ltd., Bombay vs. V.N. Parulekar & Ors., reported in 1994 III L.L.J. (Suppl.) 546 and Bhavani Metal Works vs. P.R. Sawant & Ors., reported in 1994 III L.L.J. (Suppl.) 771, the impugned order holds that the issue, whether the finding of the charge of misconduct recorded by the enquiry officer was perverse, is not correct and that the issue framed ought to have been whether the charge of misconduct levelled against the workman is proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal by acceptable evidence. According to the learned Single Judge, if the question to be asked is whether the finding is perverse, the approach of the tribunal is bound to be very narrow, whereas the tribunal’s power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act are very wide and not limited to the grounds on which it could interfere with the order of dismissal or discharge passed by the management under the preexisting law. Therefore, the tribunal was under a duty to reappraise the evidence and satisfy itself as to whether misconduct alleged against the workman was proved or not. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the learned Officer presiding over CGIT has taken a very narrow approach under the belief that the tribunal could not go into finding of fact arrived at by the enquiry officer.
