it is pertinent to notice that the workmen had not requested the Enquiry Officer for the assistance of an interpretor to cross examine. Instead, they had sought time to obtain services of an interpreter which was granted repeatedly, on four occasions. It was only thereafter that, further proceedings were continued. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the Management, even if the evidence of Sri.Thomas is excluded, there is the evidence of MW3 Krishnan and MW4 Rajan who were cross-examined on behalf of the workers. It is also worth noticing that, WW1 to WW7 witnesses were examined on the side of the workmen in support of their contentions. It was thereafter that, the enquiry proceedings were completed. Therefore, this is a case in which, the workmen had participated in the enquiry without raising any objections regarding the manner of conduct of the same, at any time during the course of the enquiry. It is only before the Labour Court after the enquiry was over and they were punished, that they have raised objections regarding the manner in which the enquiry was conducted, as contended. A perusal of Exts.P1 and P2 shows that, the Labour Court has gone into the matter, in detail and has found that the proceedings as well as the punishments were in order. No infirmity justifying an interference with the said findings has been pointed out in it.
