1. Dismissal of workman for assaulting a supervisor outside factory premises — dispute over whether the act constitutes misconduct under certified standing orders — challenge to reinstatement order. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 114
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., Appellant
Versus
The Workmen, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 517 of 1963.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. G. B. Pai, Advocate, M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Appellant; M/s. P. Govinda Menon, M. S. K. Iyengar and M. R. K. Pillai, Advocates, for Respondent No.1
Advocates:
G.B.PAI, J.B.DADACHAN, M.R.Krishna Pillai, M.S.K.AIYANGAR, O.C.MATHUR, P.GOVINDA MENON, Ravindra Narayan
G.B.PAI, J.B.DADACHAN, M.R.Krishna Pillai, M.S.K.AIYANGAR, O.C.MATHUR, P.GOVINDA MENON, Ravindra Narayan
A domestic enquiry's findings are binding on an Industrial Tribunal unless perverse. Misconduct outside factory premises is covered if rationally connected to employment. The burden to produce witnesses in a domestic enquiry lies with the employee, and pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically vitiate such enquiries.
Headnote:(A) Certified Standing Orders - Standing Order 22(viii) - Misconduct - Assault outside factory premises - Rational connection with employment - Misconduct including riotous or disorderly behaviour without the factory is attracted if the act has a rational connection with the employment of the assailant and the victim; purely private or individual disputes are excluded. (Paras 2-3)
(B) Domestic Enquiry - Principles of Natural Justice - Production of witnesses - In a domestic enquiry, the officer is not required to compel the attendance of witnesses; the responsibility to produce witnesses lies with the charge-sheeted employee. Failure of witnesses to appear, despite reasonable assistance by the enquiry officer, does not constitute a violation of natural justice. (Para 5)
(C) Industrial Adjudication - Scope of interference with domestic enquiry findings - Findings recorded in a fairly conducted domestic enquiry are binding on the Industrial Tribunal unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence. An employee cannot be allowed to lead evidence before the Tribunal merely because witnesses failed to appear during the domestic enquiry. (Para 8)
(D) Domestic Enquiry vs. Criminal Proceedings - While it is desirable to stay a domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of criminal proceedings for the same incident, proceeding with the enquiry does not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings or render the conclusion mala fide. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A workman was dismissed following a domestic enquiry for assaulting a supervisor outside the factory premises. The assault was motivated by a dispute regarding an incentive bonus scheme. The Industrial Tribunal ordered reinstatement, holding that the act was a private matter, the enquiry violated natural justice as certain witnesses were not examined, and the dismissal was mala fide.
Findings of Court:
The assault was not a private matter as it was linked to industrial disputes over a bonus scheme. The domestic enquiry was fair, and the failure to produce witnesses was the workman's fault. The dismissal was not mala fide, and the pendency of criminal proceedings did not vitiate the enquiry.
Issues: Whether the assault outside the factory fell under the scope of misconduct in the standing orders; whether the domestic enquiry violated principles of natural justice; whether the dismissal was mala fide; and whether the pendency of criminal proceedings necessitated a stay of the domestic enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: Misconduct outside the factory is covered if there is a rational connection to employment. A fair domestic enquiry's findings are binding unless perverse. The burden of producing witnesses in a domestic enquiry rests with the employee. Error in legal or factual conclusion does not equate to mala fides.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the assault was a private dispute outside the scope of standing orders and whether the domestic enquiry violated principles of natural justice. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Assault motivated by industrial dispute over bonus scheme falls under standing orders; domestic enquiry was fair; error in legal conclusion does not equate to mala fides. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
4. Findings of a fairly conducted domestic enquiry are binding on industrial tribunals unless perverse or unsupported by evidence. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — Industrial Tribunal order set aside — reference answered in favor of the employer. (Para 10 )
6. When does misconduct occurring outside the factory premises fall within the scope of certified standing orders?
Such behavior is covered if the employer can demonstrate a rational connection between the disorderly or riotous conduct and the employment of the assailant and the victim, rather than it being a purely private or individual dispute. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. Does the failure of a workman's witnesses to appear in a domestic enquiry constitute a violation of natural justice?
No, provided the enquiry officer gives a reasonable opportunity. The employee is responsible for producing witnesses; the officer is not required to compel attendance or act upon unsigned requests for adjournment. (Para 5 )
8. Can an industrial tribunal re-examine the merits of a case if the domestic enquiry was conducted fairly?
No. Findings properly recorded in a fairly conducted domestic enquiry are binding on the parties and cannot be re-examined by an industrial tribunal unless the findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. (Para 8 )
9. Does proceeding with a domestic enquiry while criminal proceedings for the same incident are pending vitiate the enquiry?
No. While it is desirable to stay a domestic enquiry pending a criminal trial, especially for grave charges, proceeding with the enquiry does not automatically render the conclusion bad in law or mala fide. (Para 9 )
10. Does an erroneous legal conclusion reached by an employer during a domestic enquiry amount to mala fides?
No. A mere error of fact or law in reaching a conclusion does not make that conclusion mala fide. (Para 7 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. :
This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the validity of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, directing the appellant, the Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., to reinstate its workman K. K. Raghavan whom it had dismissed with effect from the 14th of November 1955. The appellant is a public limited concern engaged in the industry of soaps and toilet articles. It owns three factories in addition to 12 sales offices.One of these factories is located at Tatapuram, Ernakulam, in the State of Kerala. Mr. Raghavan was working with the appellant at its factory at Tatapuram. It was reported to the appellant that on the 12th November, 1955. Mr. Raghavan and another employee of the appellant, Mr. Mathews by name, waylaid Mr. C. A. Augustine, the Chargeman of the Soap Plant of the company s factory at Tatapuram while he was returning home after his duty in the second shift and assaulted him. That is why charge-sheets were issued against both Messrs. Raghavan and Mathews on the 14th November, 1955. Pursuant to the service of the charge-sheets, two officers were appointed by the appellant to hold an enquiry; but the respondent Union represented to the appellant that justice would not be done to Raghavan and Mathews unless somebody outside Tatapuram was invited to hold the enquiry. Thereupon, the General Manager of the appellant appointed Mr. Y. D. Joshi, who is a Law Officer of the appellant it the Head Office, to hold the enquiry. Mr. Joshi held the enquiry from the 27th to 30th December, 1955, and subsequently, he made his report to the General manager of the appellant on the 7th January, l956. At that time, an industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and its employees, and so, the appellant applied to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the dismissal of Messrs. Raghavan and Mathews. The Tribunal approved of the dismissal of Raghavan, but did not accord its approval of the dismissal of Mathews. Acting in pursuance of the approval accorded by the Tribunal, the appellant dismissed Raghavan with effect from 14th November, 1955. Not satisfied with the order of dismissal, the respondent raised an industrial dispute in regard to the propriety and validity of the said dismissal of Raghavan and that has become the subject-matter of the present reference which was ordered on the 3rd of December, 1958. It is on this reference that the Industrial Tribunal has held that the appellant was not justified in dismissing Raghavan, and so, has ordered his reinstatement. This is the order which has given rise to the present appeal by special leave.
2. The first point which calls for our decision in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the facts proved against Raghavan did not attract the provisions of standing Order 22 (vii) of the Certified standing Orders of the appellant. The said standing order provides that without prejudice to the general meaning of the term "misconduct", it shall be deemed to mean and including, inter alia, drunkenness, fighting, riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour within or without the factory. It is common ground that the alleged assault took place outside the factory, and, in fact, at a considerable distance from it. The Tribunal has held that the assault in question can be treated as a purely private matter between .Raghavan and Augustine with which the appellant was not concerned and as a result of which standing Order 22 (viii) cannot be invoked against Raghavan. Mr. Menon who has appeared for the respondent before us, has contended that in construing standing orders of this character, we must take care, to see that disputes of a purely private or individual type are not brought within their scope. He argues that on many occasions, individual employees may have to deal with private disputes, and sometimes, as a result of these private disputes, assault may be committed. Such an assault may attract the relevant provisions of
