Is it mandatory to take oath before the enquiry starts for each and every person who are summoned since IC vested civil court procedures as per SHWW Act. Please clarify.
From India, Villupuram
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
2From India, Villupuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Colleague,
To the best of my knowledge, it is not necessary to administer an oath in this inquiry, which is like a domestic inquiry, although powers are vested to summon witnesses.
Regards, Vinayak Nagarkar HR Consultant.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To the best of my knowledge, it is not necessary to administer an oath in this inquiry, which is like a domestic inquiry, although powers are vested to summon witnesses.
Regards, Vinayak Nagarkar HR Consultant.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Clarification-Seeker,
Your Point: "Is it mandatory to take an oath before the IC Inquiry Proceedings by Persons (the Complainant or the Respondent or the Witnesses) Testifying before IC in connection with ongoing Inquiry into a SH Complaint?
Kritarth Team's Offer: "For such Internal Inquiries conducted by the IC to ascertain the Facts related to the SHC, there is No Need for the IC to administer Oath as i) such Inquiry are Not Guided by the Indian Evidence Act 1872 as otherwise applicable in the Courts of Law; ii) Supreme Court and High Courts held that administering "Oath," puts/creates some sort of Onus, liability, Obligation, compulsion, binding, burden and the like on those Testifying/Deposing before the IC-a quasi-judicial body- and constrict Free Will/takes away a Choice/voluntariness on such Persons and in some ways amount to duress or extorting an involuntary submission. Our Judiciary in the Court Cases observed that the Person Testifying "be insulated from any compulsion, duty, burden, undue influence like seeking and securing admission of information which might jeopardize a "voluntary offering," subtle or crude, thereby overshadowing their Fundamental Right. In this context, the recent Ruling of Sikkim HC in March 2018 serves as an Eye-Opener.
Our Judiciary also held that such Internal Inquiry's Objective is to go by the preponderance of Possibilities or probabilities presented before the IC or similar Domestic/Managerial Inquiries. Kritarth Team goes by the aforesaid views so understood and refrains from administering any Oath and instead, take due and diligent care to explain/describe to those Present and participating in the IC Inquiry Proceedings the following:
1. The "Charge of Misconduct" leveled against the Respondent and the Complainant;
2. Explanation in defense submitted by the Respondent in reply to the allegations;
3. Principles of Natural Justice- How the IC and others will actualize the Twin Principles of N.J;
4. Inquiry Procedures prescribed for such Internal Inquiries by our Judiciary from time to time;
5. Steps/Order of Events to be adhered to /followed by the IC; Who testifies first and thereafter sequence;
Once, the Complainant, the Respondent, and the Witnesses Re-affirm that each of them understood all of the above, the ICs served by us as IC Member (External), commence, Conduct and Conclude the IC Inquiry Proceedings and prepare the Inquiry Reports with "Definite" and "Conclusive" Findings which are "Final" and "Binding" - which we all know, now.
And Whenever and Wherever, Kritarth Team conducts the Mandatory A) Twin Programs for the IC Members and B) Awareness Programs for the Employees, at regular Intervals we share the aforesaid Information, also with the Employers/Management Teams. And as we know, the Mandatory A) Twin Programs for the IC Members and B) Awareness Programs for the Employees, at regular Intervals must be Organized by Every Employer under Section -19 of SHWW (P, P&R) Act 2013 and Reported to the District Officer and the ROC.
Kritarth Team of Spl Educators and Serving IC Member (External) 1st July 2018 Kritarth Team
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your Point: "Is it mandatory to take an oath before the IC Inquiry Proceedings by Persons (the Complainant or the Respondent or the Witnesses) Testifying before IC in connection with ongoing Inquiry into a SH Complaint?
Kritarth Team's Offer: "For such Internal Inquiries conducted by the IC to ascertain the Facts related to the SHC, there is No Need for the IC to administer Oath as i) such Inquiry are Not Guided by the Indian Evidence Act 1872 as otherwise applicable in the Courts of Law; ii) Supreme Court and High Courts held that administering "Oath," puts/creates some sort of Onus, liability, Obligation, compulsion, binding, burden and the like on those Testifying/Deposing before the IC-a quasi-judicial body- and constrict Free Will/takes away a Choice/voluntariness on such Persons and in some ways amount to duress or extorting an involuntary submission. Our Judiciary in the Court Cases observed that the Person Testifying "be insulated from any compulsion, duty, burden, undue influence like seeking and securing admission of information which might jeopardize a "voluntary offering," subtle or crude, thereby overshadowing their Fundamental Right. In this context, the recent Ruling of Sikkim HC in March 2018 serves as an Eye-Opener.
Our Judiciary also held that such Internal Inquiry's Objective is to go by the preponderance of Possibilities or probabilities presented before the IC or similar Domestic/Managerial Inquiries. Kritarth Team goes by the aforesaid views so understood and refrains from administering any Oath and instead, take due and diligent care to explain/describe to those Present and participating in the IC Inquiry Proceedings the following:
1. The "Charge of Misconduct" leveled against the Respondent and the Complainant;
2. Explanation in defense submitted by the Respondent in reply to the allegations;
3. Principles of Natural Justice- How the IC and others will actualize the Twin Principles of N.J;
4. Inquiry Procedures prescribed for such Internal Inquiries by our Judiciary from time to time;
5. Steps/Order of Events to be adhered to /followed by the IC; Who testifies first and thereafter sequence;
Once, the Complainant, the Respondent, and the Witnesses Re-affirm that each of them understood all of the above, the ICs served by us as IC Member (External), commence, Conduct and Conclude the IC Inquiry Proceedings and prepare the Inquiry Reports with "Definite" and "Conclusive" Findings which are "Final" and "Binding" - which we all know, now.
And Whenever and Wherever, Kritarth Team conducts the Mandatory A) Twin Programs for the IC Members and B) Awareness Programs for the Employees, at regular Intervals we share the aforesaid Information, also with the Employers/Management Teams. And as we know, the Mandatory A) Twin Programs for the IC Members and B) Awareness Programs for the Employees, at regular Intervals must be Organized by Every Employer under Section -19 of SHWW (P, P&R) Act 2013 and Reported to the District Officer and the ROC.
Kritarth Team of Spl Educators and Serving IC Member (External) 1st July 2018 Kritarth Team
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No, it is not needed. The disciplinary proceedings are not judicial proceedings warranting an oath procedure for the witnesses. They are quasi-judicial (semi-judicial) proceedings, and compliance with the principles of natural justice is all that is called for.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi
It is not necessary to take oath before the enquiry starts.
When the IC start inquiry into the compliant the law demands it has to take oath as the IC has vested with the powers of the Civil Court while conducting the inquiry.
Section 11 sub-section 3 clearly stipulate that the IC shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedures, 1908 when trying a suit in respect of the following matters namely; (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and (c) any other which may be prescribed
Hence, it is my considered opinion IC should abide the stipulation set out under Section 11(3) of the Act
Regards
P.S.Lakshmanan
S. G. Management Services
(PAN INDIA Consultant – Labour Law Compliance,
PF, ESI, P Tax, Benefit Management &
POSH COMPLIANCE
Kolkata
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is not necessary to take oath before the enquiry starts.
When the IC start inquiry into the compliant the law demands it has to take oath as the IC has vested with the powers of the Civil Court while conducting the inquiry.
Section 11 sub-section 3 clearly stipulate that the IC shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedures, 1908 when trying a suit in respect of the following matters namely; (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and (c) any other which may be prescribed
Hence, it is my considered opinion IC should abide the stipulation set out under Section 11(3) of the Act
Regards
P.S.Lakshmanan
S. G. Management Services
(PAN INDIA Consultant – Labour Law Compliance,
PF, ESI, P Tax, Benefit Management &
POSH COMPLIANCE
Kolkata
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Where is the problem in taking an oath? What is an oath and why is it important to understand? An oath is essentially a promise, particularly that you will speak the truth or that what you have said is true.
The statement that is recorded must be signed by the individual with a note stating, "The recorded version is nothing but true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief."
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The statement that is recorded must be signed by the individual with a note stating, "The recorded version is nothing but true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief."
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Register and Log In.
Online payment of PF mandatory from 1.1.2016.pdf
Check LisCheck List ofr Disciplinary Proceedings Domestic Enquiry 11 Sep 09.doc