to the misconduct. After perusing the enquiry files, Labour Court found that the list of witnesses or of documents were not furnished to the delinquent; the presenting officer examined all the witnesses and marked all the documents in a single day and that after completing the entire proceedings of enquiry, when it was posted for hearing, the presenting officer gave a letter to the inquiry officer requesting to adduce additional evidence and inquiry officer without furnishing a copy of the letter to petitioner, permitted to adduce additional evidence, in order to cover up the lacuna created by other witnesses on the aspect of “intention of dishonest”, which was not proved in the inquiry, on a finding from the inquiry officer. The Labour Court found that the enquiry officer was biased. It was found that before permitting the presenting officer to tender additional evidence the enquiry officer ought to have called for objections, if any, of the petitioner. Seeing that the copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the workman, on account of which he lost his opportunity to give explanation on the findings against him, Labour Court found that the enquiry officer had acted in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the enquiry report was liable to be set aside. Further, it was found that the charge itself was vague and management was not sure whether it was fraud or theft or dishonest act connected with the business of the company.
