Heard Mr. Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by him that the impugned order of the Labour Court whereby the departmental inquiry has been held to be vitiated on the ground of bias, is erroneous, inasmuch as the questions put by the Inquiry Officer to respondent No.2 were only clarificatory in nature, looking to the technical nature of the issue involved in the departmental inquiry. It is further submitted that questions were put by the Inquiry Officer not only to respondent No.2, but also to the witnesses of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 was granted full opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. It is further submitted that merely because certain questions were put by the Inquiry Officer would not, per se, lead to the conclusion that the inquiry is biased or vitiated or that the Inquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor. That nature of the questions reveals that there is no bias at all.
That respondent No.2 has not, at any stage of the proceedings, raised an issue that the questions put to him were biased or that the Inquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor or that he has suffered prejudice due to this. On being asked by the Inquiry Officer, at the conclusion of the inquiry, respondent No.2 has stated that he is satisfied with the procedure of the inquiry.
That even in the Statement of Claim, respondent No.2 has not stated that he has been prejudiced by the questions put to him by the Inquiry Officer. Had respondent No.2 been prejudiced, nothing prevented him from stating so in the Statement of Claim.
With regard to the aspect that the petition has been filed against an interlocutory order. It is submitted that the facts of each case ought to be seen and it cannot be said, as a principle of universal application that no petition can be filed against an interlocutory order, even if the said order is perverse. In support of this and other submissions, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:
(1) 2000 (1) GLR 562, Patel Filters Limited V. Barkatbhai V. Narsindani & Anr. (paragraph-7) (2) Civil Application No.7640 of 2010 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1575 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.11258 of 2009 (3) 2005(II) LLJ 80, State Transport Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. Shankar gopal Pagire and Others (paragraphs 5, 7 to 10) (4) 1996 (II) LLJ 529, Pravin Ratilal Dudhara Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (paragraph 15) (5) 1970 (I) LLJ 26, Workmen in Buckingham and Carnatic Mills, Madras Vs. Buckingham and Carnatic Mills, Madras (paragraphs 7, 9, 11, 15) It is further submitted that the order of Reference is dated 22.08.2005, and impugned order has been passed on 08.05.2012. In fact, it is the petitioner that would suffer prejudice, as it would not be possible to locate all the witnesses who were working at that point of time after such a long period of time, as evidence would have to be led afresh and the entire exercise would have to be undertaken again.
That there is no material on record to suggest that the inquiry proceedings are vitiated. The Tribunal has come to this conclusion only on the ground that certain questions were asked, without taking into consideration that respondent No.2 has not raised any issue regarding the same and stated that the said questions have put him at any disadvantage, or even the nature of the questions.
After hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioner for over one hour, Mr. D.S. Vasavda, learned advocate for the Caveator (respondent No.2), has made a request that the matter be adjourned, at this stage.
In view of the submission made by Mr. D.S. Vasavada, learned advocate, the matter is adjourned to 15.10.2012.
(SMT.
ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) piyush