Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st August, 1962
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Provincial Transport Services, Appellant
Versus
State Industrial Court, Nagpur and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 504 of 1961.
Advocates appeared :
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, (Mr. E. J. Moharir, Advocate and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Appellant; M/s. B. A. Masodkar, Bishambar Lal and Ganpat Rai, Advocates for Respondent No. 3.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Dismissal of employee - Enquiry - Necessity - C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (23 of 1947), Ss. 16, 31, Sch. 2, Cl. 3.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a transport company, dismissed an employee, Kundlik Tulsiram Bhosle, without holding an enquiry. Kundlik filed an application under S. 16 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, before the Labour Commissioner, alleging that his dismissal was illegal and praying for reinstatement. The Labour Commissioner dismissed the application, holding that there were sufficient grounds to doubt whether an enquiry was really made by the management. The State Industrial Court set aside the order of the Labour Commissioner and directed reinstatement of the employee with back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court refused to interfere with the finding of the Labour Commissioner and the Industrial Court that no enquiry had been held by the management. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not setting aside the finding of the Labour Commissioner that no enquiry had been held, as the finding was perverse.
Issues: 1. Whether it was necessary in law to hold an enquiry before dismissing the employee in view of the terms of his employment? 2. Whether the Assistant Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to hold an enquiry himself? 3. Whether the finding of the Labour Commissioner that no enquiry had been held was perverse?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The word "law" in the phrase "in accordance with law" in Schedule 2 of the Act includes not only enacted or statutory law but also common law, including industrial law as it has been evolved by industrial decisions. 2. Even though a proper enquiry was not held by the management, the Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to hold an enquiry himself. 3. The finding of the Labour Commissioner that no enquiry had been held was perverse, as there was no evidence to support the employee's claim that his signature had been obtained on a blank paper and the document was then written up.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and ordered that the appellant's application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution be allowed and the order of the State Industrial Court be set aside and the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner dismissing the employee's application be restored.
Judgment:
DAS GUPTA, J.: This appeal by special leave is against an order of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur rejecting an application made by this appellant under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing an order made by the State Industrial Court, Nagpur, in the matter of dismissal by the appellant of its employee, Kundlik Tulsiram Bhosle. Kundlik Tulsiram Bhosle, who is the third respondent before us, was engaged as a temporary Motor driver in the service of the appellant. He was appointed on December 22, 1954 and it was expressly mentioned in the letter of appointment that until such time as he was confirmed by an order in writing his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice or compensation and without assigning any reason. It has also stated that his case would be considered for confirmation one year after the date of appointment, provided a suitable permanent post fell vacant and his work was found satisfactory. By an order dated December 19, 1955 he was dismissed from service from December 20, 1955. It appears that before this step was taken by the management, Kundlik had been served with a charge-sheet that on November 14, when he was in charge of a Bus as driver he allowed Conductor Vyenkati to carry five passengers without ticket and also allowed an unauthorised driver Sheikh Akbar to drive the Bus. The charge-sheet was served on Kundlik on November 9, and on November 19, he submitted an explanation. According to the management an enquiry was thereafter held by the Depot Manager and the charges were found established. Accordingly he was dismissed. Kundlik, the employee, made an application under S. 16 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, before the Labour Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur, alleging that his dismissal had not been preceded by an enquiry, that he had been illegally dismissed and praying for reinstatement.
2. The appellant pleaded in its written statement that an enquiry had been properly held and that the order of dismissal was legally made. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, who has the powers of the Labour Commissioner, under S. 16, dealt with the application. He was of opinion that there were "sufficient grounds to doubt whether an enquiry was really made by the Non-applicant Management and if at all one was held, whether the applicant as an accused person, had the chance to put questions to the witnesses who deposed against him." On the basis of the evidence adduced before him the Assistant Labour Commissioner came to the conclusion that the employee could not be held guilty of the charge of allowing an unauthorised person to drive the vehicle as Sheikh Akbar was a fully licensed driver of the Company but that his guilt on the other charge that he carried five passengers without tickets was fully established. Accordingly he dismissed the application.
3. Against this order the employee moved the State Industrial Court, Nagpur. That Court felt that it would not be justified in interfering with the findings of the Labour Commissioner that no enquiry had been held by the Management and that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry. In this view the Court set aside the order of the Labour Commissioner and made an order directing reinstatement of the employee with back wages.
4. It was against this order that the employer moved the High Court of Bombay on the ground that the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the State Industrial Court had erred in thinking that no enquiry had been held by the management and that the said Industrial Court was also wrong in thinking that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry himself.
5. The High Court was of opinion that it could not exercise its powers under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere with the finding of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Revisional Court that no enquiry had been held. Proceeding on that basis the
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
