Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
The Hindusthan General Electrical Corporation Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Bishwanath Prasad and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2167 of 1966, D/17-8-1971.
Industrial Disputes Act – Sections 10, 33 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226, 227 – Guilty of misappropriation – Dismissal of Services – Respondent filed a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of Constitution before Patna High Court challenging award inter alia on ground that Labour Court had failed to appreciate that enquiry officer had acted mala fide and in violation of principles of natural justice in holding enquiry. – A complaint was also made that letters from conciliation officer Dhanbad were ignored by Labour Court. – Management filed a counter affidavit justifying its action against workmen and submitting that award had been correctly made. – Held, It was contended that this course was not adopted in this case – Facts in that case as found from report are that appellant who was a store keeper of respondent company had been served with a charge sheet as a result of checking of stock in his care; this was followed by an enquiry and an order of dismissal of appellant. – Employee made an application under S. 33-A of Act alleging that S. 32 had been contravened and he was entitled to reinstatement. – Tribunal rejected preliminary objection of company that an application under S. 33-A was not competent and thereafter proceeded to examine merits of case. – As a result thereof tribunal believed evidence led by respondent to hold that appellant was guilty of misappropriation – Labour Court had to adjudicate upon dispute which was referred to it; with regard to respondent it had to go into question as to whether he had been properly dismissed. – On material before it, it came to conclusion that respondent s action in lodging a false complaint to police against conduct of appellant s officers was subversive of discipline which merited dismissal. – Labour Court had evidence before it; lodging of complaint was not disputed, that allegations therein were false were not denied and humiliation of officers was not contradicted. – Not one of grounds formulated in Indian Iron and Steel Co. s case, 1958 SCR 667 which could lead Tribunal to hold that dismissal was improper was substantiated – Court hold that order of High Court remitting matter back to Labour Court was not justified – Appeal Allowed
Judgment
MITTER, J.: This appeal by special leave arises out of an order of the Patna High Court setting aside the award dated 23rd February 1962 made by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Ranchi and remitting the matter back to him for making a fresh award in accordance with the observations of the High Court.
2. The facts are as follows. The first respondent, Bishwanath Prasad,a workman of the appellant, made a complaint in writing to the officer in charge of Nirsa Police Station on September 19, 1960 stating inter alia that the members of his Union were being harassed repeatedly by the Management of the company and that the labourers had reported on that day that an Assistant Manager, a Labour Welfare Officer and the others had broken open the lock of the room of a worker by the name of Kashi Nath Singh and thrown away his belongings when he was actually on duty. The police were requested to take proper action against the said Assistant Manager. After enquiry the officer in charge Nirsa police station submitted a final report on 19th November 1960 to the effect that the complainant Bishwanath Prasad had deliberately brought a false complaint. The Sub Divisional Officer of the District acting on the final report dismissed the complaint on 12th January 1961. The Management served the respondent Bishwanath Prasad with a charge sheet on 23rd January 1961 to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his misconduct subversive of discipline in making serious defamatory allegations against the officers in general and to two of the officers in particular who had been put to great harassment and humiliation at the investigation by the police. The explanation given by Bishwanath Prasad to the charge sheet was that he had made the report to the police after receiving a complaint from Kasinath Singh, a member of his Union with no intention to undermine the prestige of the officers concerned and the discipline in the factory, but simply to pacify the workers who were very much excited owing to the action of the officer. It appears that an enquiry into the matter was fixed by the Management and the respondent was asked to appear at the enquiry on 30th January, 1961 but he failed to attend the same and sent a letter "asking for an open enquiry in which representatives of the Labour Department, Dhanbad should be present". The enquiry officer sent in his report and the Management acting thereupon dismissed the respondent from service with effect from the date of suspension, namely. 23rd January, 1961.
3. Quite unconnected with the above matter, there was trouble in the factory on 10th January 1961 when one group of workers is alleged to have assaulted another group due to inter-Union rivalry. The Company dismissed 10 workmen on the ground of their assaulting two others on 28th January, 1961.
4. On 28th March 1961, the Government of Bihar referred an Industrial Dispute to the Labour Court, Ranchi regarding the dismissal of the 11 workmen including the respondent Bishwanath Prasad. The Labour Court examined the merits of the matter and held that the orders of dismissal meted out by the management to all the workmen would have to be maintained and the workmen were not entitled to any relief. Examining the facts and circumstances in the light of the principles formulated by this Court in the case of Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1958 SCR 667
"In case of dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does not, however, act as a Court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management. It will interfere (i) when there is a want of good faith, (ii) when there is victimisation or unfair labour practice, (iii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and (iv) when on the materials the finding is completely baseless or perverse."
The Tribunal held that the finding of the Management with regard to the guilt of the 10 workmen other than
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
