ORDER
K. Raviraja Pandian, J.
1. In this writ petition, the management, Binny Ltd., Engineering Division, Meenambakkam, sought for the relief of issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent, Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in Application No. 77 of 1992 and quash the order dated April 7, 1995, as modified by the order, dated April 28, 1995, whereby the approval application filed by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act seeking for approval of the orders of dismissal of the second respondent was rejected on the grounds that the domestic inquiry conducted by the enquiry officer was not fair and proper and further directed the petitioner to adduce oral evidence to prove that the enquiry is fair and proper, which order has been subsequently modified to the effect that it is not just and necessary to reopen the petition, to advance arguments or to adduce additional evidence.
2. The material facts are as follows:
The second respondent was employed as fitter in the petitioner-management. On April 7, 1992, the second respondent made some disparaging remarks about one Balakrishnan, the maistry and that there was an altercation between Balakrishnan and the second respondent, which ended in a scuffle in the course of which both the second respondent and Balakrishnan sustained injuries. Arising out of the aforesaid incident, the second respondent as well as Balakrishnan were issued charge sheets on April 8, 1992. The second respondent was asked to appear for an enquiry on April 22, 1992 by notice, dated April 20, 1992. As the enquiry did not take place on that date, the next date of enquiry to April 25, 1992 was intimated. Several adjournments were given at the request of the second respondent and ultimately, the enquiry officer was constrained to complete the enquiry on May 16, 1992 in the absence of the second respondent. The enquiry officer gave his report on June 1, 1992 holding that the charges against the second respondent were proved. A second show-cause notice, dated June 8, 1992, proposing punishment of dismissal was issued to the second respondent along with the necessary documents. After considering the reply of the second respondent, dated June 12, 1992, orders were passed on July 24, 1992 dismissing the second respondent from service. As I.D. No. 24 of 1986 was pending before the first respondent, after paying one month's, wages in lieu of notice to the second respondent, an application for approval was filed before the first respondent.
3. As far as Balakrishnan, the maistry was concerned, he was also proceeded with in a domestic enquiry, in which the charge against him was established and found guilty of the charge and he was dismissed from service on July 24, 1992. An approval application in Application No. 78 of 1992 was filed. When the application was pending, Balakrishnan tendered unconditional apology for his conduct and he was taken as a fresh entrant.
4. The approval application in respect of the second respondent was numbered as Approval Application No. 77 of 1992. As stated already, the said application was dismissed by the first respondent on the premise that the enquiry was not fair and proper and further adjourned the matter for adducing evidence to prove the case of the petitioner. However, by a subsequent order, dated April 28, 1995, the approval application was dismissed on the ground that it was just and necessary to reopen the petition to advance arguments or adduce additional evidence. That order is put in issue in the present writ petition.
5. Sri Ravindran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the order of the first respondent as beyond the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry was not fair and proper when the second respondent had due notice for the enquiry on May 16, 1992 and despite that notice, he chose to stay away from the enquiry. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-issuance of the Tamil version of the enquiry notice, dated April 20, 1992 is not at all tenable. Having given an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence by its order, dated April 7, 1995, the Tribunal had no power to review that order and reject the application for approval.
6. On the other hand, Sri Prasad, the: learned counsel appearing for the second respondent very strenuously contended that there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders passed by the Tribunal rejecting the approval application. The Tribunal had given unassailable reasons to come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was a farce and it was not conducted in a fair and proper manner by giving due opportunity to the second respondent to prove his innocence. When the Tribunal has power to consider the approval application, it has power to review its own order and as such, there is no vitiating circumstance available, which warrant interference of the order of the Tribunal by this Court.
7. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record.
8. On a careful consideration of the award passed by the Tribunal and the material which formed basis for passing such order, I am of the view that the Tribunal fell in error in coming to the conclusion that enquiry has not been conducted in a fair and proper manner. The entire evidence made available on record clearly proved that the second respondent/workman was not inclined to participate in the domestic enquiry and he was determined to avoid the same by one pretext or other. When a show-cause notice was issued by the petitioner/management on April 8, 1992, under Exhibit M.3, the second respondent/workman by his letter, dated April 10, 1992, submitted that the complaints given by him and other workers against the Maistry Balakrishnan on earlier occasions has not been taken note of and no action has been taken against him. However, by the show cause notice Exhibit M3, dated April 10, 1992, action is sought to be initiated as against the second respondent/workman. By saying so, he requested for copy of the complaint, which formed basis for the show-cause notice. The petitioner/management on the next day, i.e., on April 11, 1992 furnished the copy of the complaint to the second respondent/workman by requesting him under Exhibit M. 5 to submit his explanation immediately. But there was no such explanation forthcoming from the second respondent/workman. Under Exhibit M.6, dated April 20, 1992, the notice of enquiry fixing the enquiry on April 22, 1992, was sent by registered post to the second respondent's address, which was returned unserved. Again, on April 25, 1992, another enquiry notice fixing the enquiry on April 29, 1992 was served on the second respondent in person and the contents of the notice have been explained to him as it was in English. A telegram was also sent to the second respondent on April 25, 1992 under Exhibit M7, which has been acknowledged by him. The second respondent/workman without participating in the enquiry, on April 29, 1992, sent a letter asking for a copy of the Standing Orders of the petitioner-establishment. On April 29, 1992, no enquiry was conducted because of the absence of the second respondent. On the very next day, i.e., on April 30, 1992, copy of the Standing Orders was furnished to the second respondent. Again, on May 12, 1992, an enquiry notice fixing the enquiry on May 16, 1992 by making appropriate correction in the enquiry notice, dated April 20, 1992, was served on the second respondent on May 12, 1992 when he came to the factory for receiving the subsistence allowance. It was made clear to the second respondent that the enquiry would go on till (sic) May 16, 1992. The second respondent curiously on May 14, 1992 gave a letter requesting for a Tamil translation of the enquiry notice, dated April 20, 1992. It is seen from the records that in the very same letter of the workman, dated May 14, 1992, the enquiry officer made an endorsement stating that the contents of the enquiry letter, dated April 20, 1992 has been read over and explained to him by Pasupathi on May 12, 1992. Hence, the enquiry would be held on May 16, 1992 and if the second respondent fails to attend it, it would be concluded. On May 14, 1992, the workman gave one more letter to the enquiry officer objecting to the endorsement made by him and he insisted that he should be furnished with the Tamil translation copy of the Enquiry notice, dated April 20, 1992.
9. It is clear from the above facts that the request of the second respondent for the copy of the complaint, which form basis to the show-cause notice has been furnished immediately on request. Likewise, the Standing Order of the petitioner-company has also been furnished to him on request immediately. The demand of the second respondent for the Tamil version of the enquiry notice, dated April 20, 1992 fixing the enquiry on April 22, 1992 has no consequence in view of the subsequent notices and telegram served on him fixing the enquiry to the subsequent date. But the second respondent clinching on his request for Tamil version of the enquiry notice, dated April 20, 1992, did not attend the enquiry on May 16, 1992 and the enquiry was conducted in his absence. Again, he started writing letters on May 25, 1992 objecting the enquiry held on May 16, 1992. The enquiry officer after considering the evidence adduced and documents marked found that the charges levelled against the second respondent were proved. On the basis of the .enquiry officer's report, a show-cause notice, dated June 8, 1992, proposing the punishment was sent along with the report of the enquiry officer. Here again, the second respondent came out with the same request that the second show cause notice and the copy of the Tamil version of the enquiry officer's report have to be given. Ultimately, the order dismissing the second respondent from service was passed on July 24, 1992.
10. The Standing Orders of the company provides that no order of suspension or dismissal shall be made unless the employee concerned is informed of in writing of the alleged misconduct and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. In awarding such punishment, the gravity of misconduct, the previous record, if any of the employee and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances shall be taken into account. The sequence of events referred to above would clearly indicate that opportunities of explaining the charges against the workman have been given, but the tenor of the letters submitted by the workman/second respondent right from the reply to the show-cause notice and even after the conclusion of the enquiry before the enquiry officer, would manifestly indicate that the workman was not inclined to participate in the enquiry and he was gathering materials for future litigation. The persistent request of the second respondent for the Tamil version of the notice, dated April 20, 1992, would clearly prove the abovesaid intention of the second respondent. When such notice is of no consequence, his persistent request for the Tamil version and the non-furnishing of such Tamil version of the notice cannot at all be regarded to be a violation, which caused prejudice to the respondent in participating in the enquiry. One cannot import fine principle of law and weigh the same in golden scales to come to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice have been totally violated.
11. It is evident from the above narrated sequence subsequent to issuance of the notice fixing the date for enquiry, which have been made known by issuance of telegram and also notices, which has been acknowledged by the second respondent/workman, the request of the second respondent for the Tamil version of the enquiry notice, dated April 20, 1992, fixing the date of inquiry on April 22, 1992 and the failure to furnish such a Tamil version would not by itself vitiate the enquiry. The procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the employee. They are generally conceived in his interest. The procedure has been followed in this case by serving the notices and telegram, fixing the enquiry on a subsequent date which is evident from the record. Hence, the failure to furnish the enquiry notice, dated April 20, 1992, cannot be said to vitiate the proceedings as held by the Labour Court, particularly, when the failure to furnish the Tamil version of the notice, dated April 20, 1992, has not caused prejudice to the second respondent. It is not the case of no notice. Notice has been given and opportunity has been duly offered. But the second respondent by his conduct has not respected and complied with the notice and availed of the opportunity. All the: correspondence from the second respondent are with certain qualification of reservation that there is no need for enquiry. It is settled that even all the procedural violations were not held to vitiate the enquiries by judicial precedent and only those violations, which cause prejudice would be considered to be the vitiating circumstances.
12. In the absence of any co-operation from the second respondent to get along with the domestic enquiry, the petitioner herein concluded the same in his absence as indicated in the notices. Even that portion of the notice that the enquiry would go on in default of the second respondent to appear has also been objected to by the second respondent in his letter. By the conduct of the petitioner/ management, it is evident that much fairness is shown by the enquiry officer to the second respondent against whom proceedings were initiated. The form of fairness and the fundamentals of such essential processual requirements being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each case, no prejudice of natural justice can be complained of in the facts and circumstances of the present case against I the petitioner. The term 'natural justice' should not be expanded beyond a limit by which a person cannot be allowed to take undue advantage and make the enquiry as a mockery. Useful reference can be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee reported in : [1977]2SCR904 and also Haripada Moitra v. Calcutta Improvement Trust reported in : AIR1970Cal154 . While coming to this conclusion, this Court is not oblivious of the fact that the jurisdiction of the Court in interfering with the award passed by the Tribunal is very limited. But at the same time, this Court cannot be blindfolded to the finding arrived at by the Tribunal fancifully on the material, which if allowed to remain would cause irreparable damage to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. On merits, the incident of scuffle is supported by evidence on records. Here again the Court is not oblivious that this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence. The judgment relied on by Sri Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in W.P. No. 17353 of 1995, which incidentally rendered by me is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed by allowing the approval application filed by the petitioner. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. is closed.
14. After the pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order of this Court, dated August 16, 1996, a sum of Rs. 83,136 (Rupees Eighty-three thousand, one hundred and thirty-six only) has been deposited by the petitioner to the credit of Approval Petition No. 77 of 1992 before the Industrial Tribunal and the same may be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner. There cannot be any impediment for such request to be accepted. Hence, the request of the petitioner is accepted.