The rules of natural justice must be followed in conducting domestic enquiries against employees, and temporary workmen are not entitled to the benefit of S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unless they have completed one year of continuous service in the industry.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 25-F - Temporary workmen - Entitlement to benefit of S. 25-F - Conditions - Continuous service for not less than one year - Meaning of "continuous service" and "one year of continuous service" - S. 2 (eee) and S. 25-B.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant company dismissed three of its workmen, Manik Chandra Das, Nagen Bora, and Monoharan. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the dismissal order in respect of Manik Chandra Das and directed his reinstatement, holding that the domestic tribunal had not followed the rules of natural justice. The Tribunal also directed certain payments to be made to Nagen Bora and Monoharan by way of compensation, holding that the termination of their services was bad only by reason of non-compliance with the provisions of S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the dismissal order passed by the company against Manik Chandra Das as there was no proper enquiry held by the domestic tribunal. The Court also held that Nagen Bora and Monoharan were not entitled to the benefit of S. 25-F as they had not completed one year of continuous service in the industry.
Issues: 1. Whether the domestic tribunal had followed the rules of natural justice in conducting the enquiry against Manik Chandra Das? 2. Whether Nagen Bora and Monoharan were entitled to the benefit of S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the domestic tribunal had not followed the rules of natural justice as the employee was not given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and examine witnesses in his defence, and the enquiry officer did not record his findings with reasons for the same in his report. 2. The Court held that Nagen Bora and Monoharan were not entitled to the benefit of S. 25-F as they had not completed one year of continuous service in the industry. The Court interpreted "continuous service" under S. 2 (eee) as meaning uninterrupted service, and "one year of continuous service" under S. 25-B as meaning employment for a period of not less than 12 calendar months and working for not less than 240 days during those 12 calendar months.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed in respect of Manik Chandra Das, but allowed in respect of Nagen Bora and Monoharan. The Court directed the appellant company to make the payments directed by the Tribunal less what had already been paid in compliance with the Tribunal's order.

Judgement

DAS GUPTA, J. This appeal arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant and its workmen. The disputes was with regard to the dismissal of 11 workmen and was referred to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. In this appeal we are concerned with three only out of those 11, as the company was given special leave to appeal against the Tribunal s award in respect of these three. They are Manik Chandra Das, Nagen Bora and Monoharan.

2. We shall deal first with the case of Manik Chandra Das. It appears that on October 23, 1959 he was served with a notice in which it was alleged that a number of articles had been spoiled due to his faults. He was asked to show cause within 48 hours of the receipt of the notice why the company should not take disciplinary measures against him. In his reply of October 25, he denied any responsibility in the matter and mentioned that he had reported to the supervisor and sardars about the defective articles before hand and according to the advice given by them had painted borders. According to the managements an enquiry was held against Manik on October 29, 1959 and on the report of the enquiry officer, the Workers Manager, he was dismissed. The order of dismissal was made on November 11, 1959. In this it was stated that he had been dismissed from the service of the company "for causing wilful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with another or others of any orders of the superior or of the management."

3. It appears that some evidence was led before the Industrial Tribunal against Manik to show that he had caused some damage to the company s property. The Tribunal held that the rules of natural justice had not been followed by the domestic tribunal. It then examined the evidence adduced by the witnesses on behalf of the management and came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient material before the Tribunal to hold that Manik was guilty of insubordination or disobedience for which the dismissal order purported to have been passed. The Tribunal further pointed out that the evidence before it in respect of the alleged damage done to the company property was not sufficient for establishing any charge which might merit dismissal. Accordingly, it set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Company and directed his reinstatement.

4. In support of the appeal against this order Mr. Sen Gupta has urged that it was not open to the Industrial Tribunal to go behind the finding arrived at by the domestic tribunal. He contended that the Tribunal was wrong in thinking that the rules of natural justice were not followed. It appears that a joint enquiry was held against Manik and one Birinchi Nobody was examined at this enquiry to prove the charges. Only Manik and Birinchi were examined. They were confronted with the reports of the supervisor and other persons made behind their backs and were simply asked why these persons would be making the reports against them falsely. It is not clear whether what they said was recorded. According to the enquiring authority they were "unable to explain as to why these persons would be making the reports against them falsely". In our opinion, it would be a misuse of the words to say that this amounted to holding of proper enquiry. It has been laid down by this Court in a series of decisions that if an industrial employee s services are terminated after a proper domestic enquires held In accordance with the rules of natural justice and the conclusions reached at the enquiry are not perverse the industrial tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or the correctness of the said conclusions. In a number of cases which have come to this Court in recent months, we find that some employers have misunderstood the decisions of this Court to mean that the mere form of an enquiry would satisfy the requirements of industrial law and would protect the disciplinary action taken by them from challenge. This attitude is wholly mi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document