Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
3rd February, 1960.
K. SUBBA RAO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 211 of 1958.
The Management of the Bangalore Woolen Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
B. Dasappa, M. T. represented by the Binny Mills Labour Association, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 212 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. D. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh. Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. L. K. Jha, Sr. Advocate (Mr. R. C. Prasad, Advocate for Mr. N. Keshavaiengar, Advocate, with him), for Respondent in C. A. No. 211 of 58 and Respondent No. 3 in C. A. No. 212 of 58.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 33 - Permission for discharge of workman - Scope of enquiry by Tribunal - Principles to be followed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Bangalore Wollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co., Ltd., applied to the Industrial Tribunal for permission to discharge Dasappa, the respondent, on the ground of theft. The Tribunal refused permission, holding that no prima facie case of theft was established against Dasappa. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order in the High Court, which dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in refusing permission for discharge. The Tribunal failed to apply the correct principles in determining whether a prima facie case of theft was established against Dasappa. The Tribunal should have considered whether, on the materials on the record, a reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that Dasappa was guilty of theft.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing permission for discharge of the workman.
Ratio Decidendi: The scope of enquiry by the Tribunal under S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is limited to determining whether a prima facie case of misconduct has been made out against the workman. The Tribunal is not entitled to sit in judgment on the action of the employer if it comes to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made out. The Tribunal should consider whether, on the materials on the record, a reasonable person could have come to the conclusion that the workman was guilty of misconduct. In the present case, the Tribunal failed to apply the correct principles and erred in refusing permission for discharge.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed both the appeals, but in view of the undertaking given by the appellant that the proposed order of discharge will not be enforced, it was not necessary to make any order granting permission.
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : On January 1956 when a reference was pending before an Industrial Tribunal of a dispute between the Management of the Bangalore Wollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co., Ltd., the appellant in both the appeals and its workmen, an application was made by the Management under S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act for permission for discharge of Dasappa, the respondent in both the appeals. It was stated in the application that on an information being received that Dasappa had dishonestly removed property belonging to the Company a charge-sheet was framed against him and an enquiry held in which on a consideration of all the evidence the Manager came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of the charge made against him, which justified an order of discharge. This application was opposed by the Workers Union on behalf of the Respondent, Dasappa and it was stated that the allegation of theft made against Dasappa was false and that the finding of the Manager was arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice.
2. The Industrial Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence of the witnesses examined by the Manager and also of two witnesses examined before it, formally recorded its conclusion in these words : "Having regard to all the material placed before us we cannot accept the conclusion of the Manager and we hold that no prima facie case of theft is established against the respondent with the result that we cannot grant the permission for discharging the respondent."
3. Against this order of dismissal the appellant moved a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ or directions after quashing the Tribunal s order. This petition was dismissed by the Mysore High Court on September 27, 1957.
4. Special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution was obtained from this Court on January 13, 1958, by the appellant against the High Court s order. The appeal filed on the basis of this leave is Appeal No. 211 of 1958. On the same day special leave was also obtained by the appellant against the order of the Industrial Tribunal. The appeal filed on the basis of the leave thus granted is Appeal No. 212 of 1958.
5. Before considering the merits of the appeal, we have to record the fact that an undertaking was given to us on behalf of the appellant by its Advocate on Record that whatever our decision may be, the appellant will not enforce the proposed order of discharge for which the application was made.
6. In the appeal against the Tribunal s order refusing the application for discharge it has been contended that though there is a formal finding that no prima facie case of theft has been established against Dasappa the Tribunal has in coming to this conclusion disregarded the pronouncements of this Court in more than one case as regards the principles which should guide the Tribunals in such matters.
7. The case which the Manager found proved was that Dasappa who was on duty on the Company s Motor Van on December 23, 1955, was found coming out of the second main gate of the Hebbal Mills with a rug piece, a property of the Company, and then concealing it under the cushion of the Van. Direct evidence as regards this was given before the Manager by one Syed Ameer. According to him, his suspicions were aroused by the way Dasappa was furtively looking to either side while coming out of the Spinning gate, and that he saw in Dasappa s hand the striped edge of a rug piece. Dasappa came near the lorry with it and opened the door and lifted the cushion and as he brought out his hand, Ameer found that it was empty. It was further his evidence that he rushed to the second main gate and when at his request the lorry was stopped the rug piece was discovered under the cushion. Corroborative evidence has been given by Subedar Athilingam who states that Syed Ameer reported this incident to him at once. Statements were also made before the Manager by these persons that Dasappa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
