Non-furnishing of basic documents and complaint to employee vitiates domestic enquiry and renders dismissal void.

The respondent, a Spot Welder Trainee confirmed in 2012 and General Secretary of the workers' union, was involved in a dispute regarding inedible food served in the canteen on 29.06.2015.

Consequently, the appellant (Management) issued a charge memo, conducted an enquiry, and dismissed the respondent on 20.05.2016.

The Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, granted approval for the dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act in A.P.No.41/2016.

The respondent challenged this in W.P.No.5713 of 2021, where the Writ Court set aside the Tribunal's order on the grounds that the enquiry was unfair due to non-furnishing of material documents.

The Management subsequently filed the present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the respondent was fair and valid given the non-furnishing of underlying documents and complaints.

2. Whether the Writ Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal which had granted approval for dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

The court applied the principles of natural justice governing domestic enquiries and Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

It emphasized the rule that non-furnishing of basic material evidence and documents relied upon by the Management vitiates the enquiry, rendering it void, as it deprives the employee of a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

The High Court examined the findings of the Writ Court, which revealed that the complaint dated 30.06.2015, forming the "substratum of the charges," was not annexed to the Charge Memo.

Cross-examination of the Management’s witness (MW1) confirmed that the complaint post-dated the incident and was withheld from the respondent.

Furthermore, documents Exs.M3, M4, and M5 were either created after the charge memo or not produced during the enquiry.

The Court reasoned that these procedural lapses—specifically the failure to provide the workman with the evidence used against him—constituted a fundamental breach of fairness.

Since the Industrial Tribunal failed to consider these aspects, its approval was flawed.

The Writ Appeal was dismissed, affirming that the dismissal order lacked a valid procedural foundation.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed with no order as to costs.