Vagueness in a charge sheet is waived if the delinquent workman participates in the enquiry without prejudice.

The Petitioner, a worker at Muttack Tea Estate, was issued a general notice on 02.11.2006 warning against the unauthorized occupation or construction on garden lands

On 16.11.2006, the Management issued a show-cause notice alleging the Petitioner constructed a kutcha house on 12.11.2006 without permission, violating the Standing Orders

The Petitioner replied claiming ancestral possession and produced a revenue certificate

Dissatisfied, the Management held a domestic enquiry where the Petitioner allegedly pleaded guilty

Consequently, he was dismissed on 01.04.2007

The Petitioner challenged this under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh, dismissed his application via an Award dated 06.10.2017, upholding the dismissal

1. Whether the show-cause notice dated 16.11.2006 was defective or vague so as to prejudice the Petitioner

2. Whether the lack of a formal eviction notice prior to disciplinary proceedings rendered the dismissal perverse

3. Whether the High Court, in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, should interfere with the Industrial Tribunal’s Award

Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding individual industrial disputes

Clause 10(a) of the Standing Orders for Tea Estates in Assam, which defines "gross misconduct"

Principles of certiorari jurisdiction established in Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, holding that interference is permitted only in cases of perversity or jurisdictional error

Precedent of Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Limited v. Workmen regarding the necessity of matching charges with specific acts of misconduct

The Court found that the Petitioner’s challenge to the vagueness of the show-cause notice was an "afterthought," as he had participated in the enquiry for years without raised objections and had understood the nature of the charges

The Court noted that even if the notice cited Clause 10(a)2 instead of 10(a)(ii), the factual allegations (unauthorized construction) were clear and definite

Regarding the lack of an eviction notice, the Court held it irrelevant to the disciplinary charge; the misconduct was the act of constructing a house in defiance of the General Notice dated 02.11.2006

The Court observed that the Industrial Tribunal had correctly found the domestic enquiry fair and the findings supported by evidence, including the Petitioner’s own admissions during cross-examination

The Petitioner failed to demonstrate any perversity or violation of natural justice in the domestic enquiry or the Tribunal’s findings

The Court further struck out the Respondent No. 2 (Presiding Officer) from the array of parties, reiterating that judicial authorities should not be made parties to writ proceedings challenging their orders

No costs were awarded