petitioner against the first respondent and with respect to the justifiability of the order of his dismissal. The workman had contended that the enquiry officer did not give him sufficient opportunity for defense, despite request, the said question was considered and as per preliminary order passed on 5.6.2003, it was found that after closing the evidence of the management, when the enquiry was posted for evidence of workman, the workman had submitted application for adjournment on the ground of illness of the union representative, who was his defense assistant. But the request for adjournment was rejected declaring the workman exparte and inquiry report was submitted thereafter finding the workman guilty of the misconduct. In those circumstances, after perusal of the enquiry file, on being satisfied of the illegal denial of opportunity to the workman to defend, the Tribunal found that the refusal to grant adjournment and setting the workman ex-parte on 30.11.1996, was not proper, especially when the enquiry was never prolonged at the instance of the workman. Since the Tribunal found that the inquiry held till 2.11.1995 i.e till the closing of evidence by the management was proper, without setting aside the inquiry, it allowed the workman to adduce evidence before the Tribunal. Simultaneously, the management was also allowed to adduce additional evidence if any.
