An industrial tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a dispute raised by an individual workman, provided that the objection is not raised before the tribunal or the Labour Appellate Tribunal.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - JURISDICTION - INDIVIDUAL WORKMAN - DISMISSAL OF WORKMAN - REINSTATEMENT - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, M/s. Tika ram and Sons Ltd. Oil Mills, Aligarh, had purported to terminate the services of the respondent, Bishamber Dayal, a Munim (accounts clerk). The respondent challenged the termination of his services before the industrial tribunal, which directed the appellant to reinstate him with continuity of service and pay him subsistence allowance and back wages.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the industrial tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, despite it being raised by an individual workman, as the objection was not raised before the tribunal or the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The court also found that the appellant had failed to substantiate its allegations against the respondent, as it had not led any evidence in the criminal proceedings or before the industrial tribunal. The court further held that the additional evidence sought to be admitted by the appellant was not admissible, as it was not produced at the proper stage and would not have assisted the appellant on the merits of the appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the industrial tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by an individual workman. 2. Whether the appellant had justified the dismissal of the respondent. 3. Whether the additional evidence sought to be admitted by the appellant was admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the industrial tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by an individual workman, as the objection was not raised before the tribunal or the Labour Appellate Tribunal. 2. The court found that the appellant had failed to substantiate its allegations against the respondent, as it had not led any evidence in the criminal proceedings or before the industrial tribunal. The court inferred that the appellant was afraid to face cross-examination by the respondent. 3. The court held that the additional evidence sought to be admitted by the appellant was not admissible, as it was not produced at the proper stage and would not have assisted the appellant on the merits of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the industrial tribunal was upheld.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between M/s. Tika ram and Sons Ltd. Oil Mills, Aligarh (hereafter called the appellant) and its workman Bishamber Dayal (hereafter called the respondent). The appellant had purported to terminate the services of the respondent, and at the instance of the respondent the dispute in regard to the said termination of his services was referred for adjudication. The tribunal as well as the appellate tribunal have held that the appellant was not justified in dismissing the respondent and so an order has been passed directing the appellant to reinstate respondent in his old job with continuity of service and to pay him the subsistence allowance and pay as specified in the award. It is this order which is challenged before us in the present appeal.

2. It appears that the respondent was employed as a Munim (accounts clerk) by the appellant from October 25, 1948 to August 31, 1951. On September 1, 1951, the respondent took one day s leave but did not return to his job in spite of repeated calls. He was marked on leave on 1-9-1951 and treated as absent for one month thereafter. Meanwhile the appellant came to know that the respondent had made certain false entries in its books of account with a view to misappropriate a Bank Draft of Rs. 1,422 which was issued in favour of the appellant. Thereupon the appellant filed a criminal complaint against the respondent and two others under Ss. 408, 477A and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. This complaint was dismissed by the learned magistrate on April 21, 1953. The appellant moved the learned Sessions Judge at Aligarh in revision but the said revisional application was also dismissed on February 17, 1954.

3. On April 22, 1954 the respondent moved the Regional Conciliation Officer for settlement of his dispute with the appellant. He alleged that the appellant had wrongfully terminated his services whereas according to the appellant the services had been terminated for misconduct as shown by the falsification of accounts made by him. Since the Conciliation Officer was unable to settle the dispute, he made a report and thereafter the present dispute was referred for industrial adjudication.

4. According to the appellant it had dealings with Shankar Das Durga Prasad of Meerut and an amount of Rs. 1,422 was due from the said firm. A draft for the said amount was received from the said firm in favour of the appellant. It was in respect of this draft that false entries were made by the respondent in the appellant s books of account kept by the respondent. The relevant entries had been overwritten with the object of conveniently misappropriating the said amount.

5. The tribunal held that the appellant had not held any enquiry against the respondent. No charge-sheet was given to him nor was any opportunity afforded to him to explain the charge. It is true that the appellant had filed a criminal complaint against the respondent but the record shows that the appellant failed to appear in the witness-box to support the said complaint. It had obtained several adjournments for the purpose of leading evidence but no evidence was in fact led and the complaint was dismissed for default. The Sessions Judge who was moved in revision by the appellant commented on this point and held that there was no force in its revisional application. In the opinion of the tribunal this conduct of the appellant clearly proved that the appellant was not willing to substantiate its charge in the criminal court.

6. It was urged before the tribunal that the respondent had made its complaint before the Conciliation Officer after a long lapse of time; but this contention was rejected by the tribunal. It found that the criminal revision filed by the appellant was dismissed on February 17, 1954, and the respondent had approached the Conciliation Officer within a couple of months thereafter. Thus there was no delay on the part of the respondent. The trib

Click Here to Read the rest of this document