1. Dismissal of workmen for obstructing duties during a strike — Reference under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act — Approval of action under Section 33(2)(b). (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
23rd January, 1963
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co., Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Ram Probesh Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate (M/s. Nonicoomar Chakarvarty and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, Advocate of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., for Mr. Dipak Dutta Choudhuri, Advocate, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 13.
Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI, M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, NONI KUMAR CHAKRAVARTI
B.P.MAHESHVARI, DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI, M.C.SETALVAD, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, NONI KUMAR CHAKRAVARTI
A proper domestic inquiry finding serious misconduct justifies dismissal. Victimisation cannot be inferred solely from the severity of the punishment or the workers' union status if the misconduct is grave, nor from unhappy employer-union relations.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10 and 33(2)(b) - Domestic inquiry - Scope of interference by Tribunal - Where a domestic inquiry is held properly, the tribunal does not sit in appeal on the findings and can only interfere if there is want of good faith, basic error, violation of natural justice, perversity, or victimisation/unfair labour practice. (Para 4)
(B) Victimisation - Punishment of dismissal - Inference of victimisation can be drawn if the punishment is unconscionable or grossly out of proportion to the nature of the offence. However, serious misconduct, such as physically obstructing other workers during a strike, justifies dismissal and does not necessarily imply victimisation. (Paras 5, 6)
(C) Union activities - Mere fact that relations between employer and union are unhappy or that workmen are union office-bearers is not sufficient evidence to prove victimisation. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Thirteen workmen were dismissed for physically obstructing surface trammers during a strike, violating mining regulations. A domestic inquiry found them guilty. The industrial tribunal initially approved the action under the relevant act but later, in a separate reference, set aside the dismissals on the grounds of victimisation, citing the workers' long service, union positions, and the severity of the punishment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the misconduct was serious and the punishment of dismissal was justified. The tribunal's finding of victimisation was based on conjectures and surmises rather than evidence. A clerical error in the employer's written statement did not constitute evidence of perversity or victimisation.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the workmen constituted an act of victimisation or unfair labour practice, and whether the punishment of dismissal was grossly out of proportion to the misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where a proper domestic inquiry establishes serious misconduct, such as obstructing workers during a strike, the punishment of dismissal is not unconscionable or disproportionate. Unhappy relations between an employer and a trade union do not grant union office-bearers immunity from disciplinary action for misconduct.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the domestic inquiry was proper and whether the dismissals constituted victimisation for trade union activities. (Para 2 )
3. Dismissal for obstructing workers during an illegal strike is serious misconduct; bad union relations or disproportionate punishment alone do not necessarily prove victimisation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Inference of victimisation cannot be drawn solely from the imposition of the extreme penalty of dismissal if the misconduct is serious and justified. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal allowed — Tribunal award set aside — Dismissal of workmen upheld. (Para 9 )
6. When can a tribunal interfere with the findings of a properly conducted domestic inquiry?
A tribunal does not sit in appeal over domestic findings but may interfere if there is a lack of good faith, basic error, violation of natural justice, perverse findings, or evidence of victimisation or unfair labour practice. (Para 4 )
7. Can the imposition of a severe penalty like dismissal be used to infer victimisation?
While unconscionable or grossly disproportionate punishment may allow an inference of victimisation, it is not sufficient if the misconduct is serious enough to justify the penalty, such as physically obstructing other workers during an illegal strike. (Para 6 )
8. Does the fact that dismissed employees are union office-bearers or that employer-union relations are strained prove victimisation?
No. Bad relations between an employer and a union, or the status of workmen as union office-bearers, does not by itself prove victimisation, as union leaders are not immune to disciplinary action for misconduct. (Para 7 )
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. A dispute was referred by the Central Government under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with reference to the thirteen workmen involved in this appeal in the following terms :-
"Whether the dismissal of the following thirteen workmen of Bhatdee Colliery was justified? If not, to what relief are they entitled and from which date?"
It appears that the thirteen workmen had physically obstructed the surface trammers working in the colliery on different dates, namely, October 20, October 27 and November 3, 1959. Some of them had also incited the other workmen to join in this act of obstructing the loyal and willing trammers so that they may be prevented from working. This happened during a strike which was begun on October 20, 1959 by the Colliery Mazdoor Sangh to which the thirteen workmen in question belonged. In consequence the appellant served charge-sheets on thirteen workmen on November 9, 1959 charging that "they physically obstructed the surface trammers on duty at Nos. 1 and 2 Inclines from performing their duties and controlling the movement of the tubs of sitting in between tramline track and inciting" on various dates, thus violating regulation 38 (1) (b) of the Coal Mines Regulations. They were asked to explain within 48 hours why disciplinary action should not be taken against them under R. 27 (19) and R. 27 (20) of the Coal Mines Standing Order. The workmen submitted their explanations and an inquiry was held by the Welfare Officer of the appellant. The Welfare Officer found all the thirteen workmen guilty of the charges framed against them recommended their dismissal. As another reference was pending before this very tribunal in November 1959, the appellant made thirteen applications to the tribunal under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act for approval of the action taken. Though the workmen submitted their replies in those proceedings they did not contest them thereafter, and the tribunal approved of the action taken. Thereafter the present references was made under S. 10 of the Act.
2. The case put forward by the workmen in the present reference was that there was no proper inquiry as the workmen were not given a chance to defend themselves. It was further submitted that the dismissals were nothing but victimisation pure and simple for trade union activities.
3. The tribunal apparently held that the inquiry was proper, though it has not said so in so many words in its award. It may be added that it could hardly do otherwise, for it had already approved of the action taken on applications made under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act. If the inquiry had not been proper, the tribunal would not have approved of the dismissals. But the tribunal held that this was a case of victimisation. It therefore set aside the order of dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of the thirteen workmen within one month of its order becoming operative and ordered that they should be treated as on leave without pay during the period of forced unemployment. It did not grant back wages as the workmen had also contributed to their forced unemployment to some extent.
4. In the present appeal, the appellant contends that there was no evidence to justify the conclusion of the tribunal that the dismissals were an act of unfair labour practice or victimisation. We are of opinion that this contention of the appellant must prevail. The tribunal was not unaware of the fact that where a domestic inquiry is held properly, the tribunal does not sit in appeal on the findings of the domestic tribunal and it can only interfere with the punishment inflicted as a result of the domestic inquiry where there is want of good faith or basic error or violation of the principles of natural justice, or where the findings are perverse or baseless
