specifically considers this case. By the judgment in Goyal
case1 the management was given the right to adduce
evidence to justify its domestic enquiry only if it had reserved
its right to do so in the application made by it under Section
33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or in the objection
that the management had to file to the reference made under
Section 10 of the Act, meaning thereby that the management
had to exercise its right of leading fresh evidence at the first
available opportunity and not at any time thereafter during
the proceedings before the Tribunal/Labour Court.
17. Keeping in mind the object of providing an opportunity to
the management to adduce evidence before the
Tribunal/Labour Court, we are of the opinion that the
directions issued by this Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal case
need not be varied, being just and fair. There can be no
complaint from the management side for this procedure
because this opportunity of leading evidence is being sought
by the management only as an alternative plea and not as an
admission of illegality in its domestic enquiry. At the same
time, it is also of advantage to the workmen inasmuch as they
will be put to notice of the fact that the management is likely
to adduce fresh evidence, hence, they can keep their rebuttal
or other evidence ready. This procedure also eliminates the
likely delay in permitting the management to make belated
application whereby the proceedings before the Labour
Court/Tribunal could get prolonged. In our opinion, the
procedure laid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal case is just and
fair.