Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
The non participation of employee in enquiry despite notices requesting participation, issued by the Enquiry Officer does not vitiate the enquiry as violative of principles of natural justice. S. Gopal Kamath v. Thayath Raghavan, 1979 Lab. IC (NOC) 92. The appointment of Legal Adviser of the Company by the employer does not vitiate enquiry. ibid. [1971 Lab IC (SC) 1 and 1979 Lab. IC 7 9 (Ker) Relied on.] The enquiry is valid if it makes a bonafide attempt to ascertain the correct facts, after giving the employee an opportunity to place his case and if the employee has not suffered a substantial prejudice in placing and proving facts for his innocence. Manindra Nath Ganguly v. Presiding Officer, 1979 BBCJ 245. The appellate authority can apply the principles of natural justice and declare such enquiries as invalid which were conducted merely as an empty formality. Kavita Movi House v. L.M. Mary, 1979 (I) LLJ 10. There is no provisions of suspension of a workman in the Act. Inter-State Transport Agency v. P.C. Sinha, 1965 BRLJ 934. Section 26 (2) of the Act and Rule 21 provide the limitation of thirty days for preferring an appeal or complaint against the orders of discharge or dismissal. The period of limitation starts from the date of order was communicated to the employee by his employer, in writing. The delay in filing an appeal can be condoned by the prescribed authority in case where there is sufficient cause for not filling an application in time. Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to all cases under this Act, as this provision corresponds with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The question of limitation, however, should be determined only after giving notice to both the parties. Jagdish Vastralaya v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 Pat. 180 : 1964 BRLJ 674. A muster-roll daily rated workman was not allowed to make attendance after he had served for three years. The notice of termination of his service was served on him after 18 months. He filed a complaint before the Labour Court the very next day but the Labour Court dismissed it by taking the period when he was not allowed to sign the attendance into account for the purpose of limitation. The High Court on appeal set aside the Labour Court’s judgment and held that where there is no written order of dismissal or discharge nor the dismissal or discharge has been notified or communicated and received by the workman, there is no question of any limitation arising in respect of the petition of complaint to be entertained by the Labour Court. Krishna Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar, 1984 BRLJ 78 : 1984 PLJR 832. An employee of a co-operative society, dismissed from service, can invoke the provisions of sec. 26 (2). There being no provision in the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act to deal with such matters. The Labour Court has definitely the jurisdiction to entertain such a case. Salendra Narain Singh v. Presiding Officer, 1981 Lab. IC (NOC) 20. See also Bhilwar S.U.W. Bhandar Ltd. v. Prescribed Authority, 1983 Lab. IC 987. A person appointed to be a Presiding Officer by a notification has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. East India Pharmaceutical Works v. G.S. Verma, 1973 BRLJ 150 : 1973 Lab. IC 1501. The Labour Court, the prescribed authority under this Act, is a court sub-ordinate to the High Court and hence its decision under section 25 can be the subject matter of revision under section 125 of C.P.C. India Tube Co. v. Pratap Mishra, 1969 BLJR 589 : 1970 (1) LLJ