Industrial Tribunal Cannot Close Evidence Prematurely If Employer Seeks To Justify Dismissal Without Domestic Enquiry: Calcutta High Court

"No litigant can be condemned on the basis of incomplete evidence caused by the Tribunal’s own premature closure order," Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an Industrial Tribunal cannot peremptorily close evidence before the completion of a witness's cross-examination, especially when the employer is seeking to justify a workman's dismissal in the absence of a domestic enquiry.

A bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) observed that such a premature closure constitutes a "gross violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice" and an abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasized that the right to lead complete evidence is a fundamental ingredient of the right to a fair hearing.

The petitioner, Lagan Engineering Company Limited, challenged an Award dated February 20, 2025, passed by the 3rd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The dispute arose after the company dismissed a workman without conducting a domestic enquiry, leading to proceedings under Section 10(1B)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. During the Tribunal proceedings, the cross-examination of the company’s witness (OPW-1) remained incomplete when the Tribunal rejected adjournment pleas and unilaterally closed the evidence.

The primary question before the court was whether the Tribunal’s decision to close evidence before the completion of cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice. The court was also called upon to determine the extent of an employer's right to lead evidence for the first time before a Tribunal to justify a dismissal when no domestic enquiry was previously held.

Tribunal Cannot Condemn Parties On Truncated Records

The Court observed that the right of a party to lead complete evidence and have its witness's cross-examination fully concluded is a fundamental pillar of the audi alteram partem rule. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) noted that the Tribunal, by its orders in November and December 2024, had peremptorily closed the evidence despite the petitioner’s bona fide requests for time to produce its witness for the completion of testimony.

The bench remarked that the impugned Award was passed on a "truncated and incomplete record," which vitiated the proceedings at their very root. The Court found that the Tribunal’s refusal to grant an opportunity to adduce evidence, despite sufficient cause being shown for the delay, caused severe prejudice to the petitioner and amounted to a clear abuse of the legal process.

"No litigant can be condemned on the basis of incomplete evidence caused by the Tribunal’s own premature closure order."

Employer’s Right To Lead Evidence When No Enquiry Is Held

The Court placing heavy reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Management, reiterated that if no domestic enquiry is held, the employer has an absolute right to lead evidence before the Tribunal to justify its action. The Court noted that in such cases, the entire matter is "at large" before the Tribunal, which must satisfy itself on the facts whether the dismissal was justified.

The bench emphasized that the Tribunal is not merely a reviewing body in such instances but must act as the primary adjudicator of facts. Citing State of Uttarakhand v. Sureshwati (2021), the Court held that the High Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with a dismissal merely because an enquiry was skipped, without first adverting to the evidence the employer seeks to lead before the judicial forum.

"If such an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse."

Scope Of Section 11-A Of The Industrial Disputes Act

The Court explained that Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act has altered the law by abridging managerial rights, giving the Tribunal the power to differ from an employer's finding of misconduct. However, this power to re-appraise evidence or the quantum of punishment can only be exercised fairly if both parties are given a full opportunity to place their case on record.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) pointed out that a defective enquiry stands on the same footing as "no enquiry." In both scenarios, the employer must be permitted to justify the order of dismissal on facts. The Court noted that the Tribunal’s decision to decide Issue No. 1 against the company while the evidence was still incomplete was legally unsustainable.

"The giving of an opportunity to an employer to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal is in the interest of both the management and the employee."

Tribunal Must Not Act In Haste To Close Proceedings

The High Court criticized the Tribunal for noting that there was "no scope for further witnesses/evidence" despite the record showing that the cross-examination of the Personnel Manager (OPW-1) was incomplete. The Court highlighted that the Tribunal itself had previously called for specific documents, such as attendance registers, yet closed the case before they could be properly placed on record.

The bench concluded that the Tribunal's haste in fixing a date for the Award while denying the completion of evidence was a procedural failure. The Court clarified that while it was not delving into the merits of the dismissal or the allegations of misconduct, the procedural impropriety necessitated a remand of the case for fresh adjudication.

The High Court set aside the impugned Award dated February 20, 2025, and restored the case to the file of the 3rd Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata. The Tribunal was directed to permit the petitioner to adduce fresh or further evidence in accordance with law and to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Date of Decision: 27 April 2026