1. Application for approval of employee dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, following misconduct involving drunkenness and disorderly behavior in company quarters. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 101
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.C.Das Gupta, K.N.Wanchoo, P.B.Gajendragadkar, JJ.
Central Coalfields Limited
Versus
Ram Bilas Shobnath
Case No. : 162 of 1959
Date of Decision : 3/31/60
Advocates Appeared: Choudhury Dipak Datta : Maheshwari B.P. : Sinha A.B.N.
Advocates:
A.B.N.Sinha, B.P.MAHESHVARI, DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI
A.B.N.Sinha, B.P.MAHESHVARI, DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI
Under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a tribunal's jurisdiction is limited; it should not refuse approval of a dismissal based on technicalities regarding the location/timing of misconduct in company quarters or the severity of the punishment if the misconduct is proved and justified by previous conduct.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Approval of dismissal - Misconduct in company quarters - Applicability of Standing Orders - Conduct involving drunkenness and indecent behavior outside working hours but within company premises - If the incident occurs in quarters provided by the employer and threatens peace, it constitutes misconduct under standing orders relating to riotous or indecent behavior (Para 5).
(B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Scope of Tribunal's jurisdiction - Severity of punishment - Normally not open to the tribunal to consider whether the sentence proposed is unduly severe or not in an enquiry under this section (Para 7).
(C) Domestic Enquiry - Validity - Where charges are clearly explained, evidence is read out, and the employee does not deny the facts or request cross-examination, the enquiry cannot be held improper merely because a formal charge-sheet was not served (Para 6).
Facts of the case:
An employee was dismissed for drunken and indecent behavior in company-provided quarters, where he abused co-workers and caused a nuisance. The employee had a history of similar misconduct and repeated warnings. The employer sought approval for the dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The tribunal refused approval, holding that the relevant standing order did not apply as the incident occurred outside working hours and away from the specific work site.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the incident occurred in company quarters near the workplace and threatened the peace, the standing order regarding indecent behavior was applicable. The tribunal erred in taking a narrow technical view and in considering the severity of the punishment, especially given the employee's previous conduct.
Issues: Whether misconduct occurring in company quarters outside working hours falls within the scope of standing orders regarding indecent behavior and whether the tribunal's refusal to approve the dismissal on technical grounds was justified under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that conduct in company quarters that is riotous or indecent constitutes misconduct, especially when it threatens peace. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) is limited, and it should not interfere with a straightforward dismissal based on proved misconduct and a poor previous record by examining the severity of the punishment or applying overly technical interpretations of standing orders.
Result: Application for approval allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether dismissal for off-duty misconduct in company quarters is valid under standing orders and whether the enquiry process was improper or the punishment unduly severe. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
3. Misconduct in company quarters near the workplace constitutes a breach of peace and falls under standing orders governing disorderly behavior, regardless of working hours. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. In proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the tribunal's jurisdiction is limited and generally does not extend to reviewing the severity of punishment. (Para 5 , 7 )
5. Tribunal's order set aside and the application for approval of the employee's dismissal allowed. (Para 8 )
6. Can standing orders prohibiting disorderly behavior apply to conduct occurring outside working hours?
Yes, if the incident occurs in company quarters located near the workplace and the conduct threatens the peace, it can be considered misconduct under standing orders, even if it happens outside working hours and away from the immediate work site. (Para 5 )
7. Does a tribunal have the power to review the severity of a punishment under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act?
Normally, in an enquiry under Section 33(2)(b), it is not open to the tribunal to consider whether the proposed sentence is unduly severe; such considerations are typically relevant in dealing with an industrial dispute rather than an approval application. (Para 7 )
8. Is a formal charge-sheet mandatory for a domestic enquiry to be considered proper?
An enquiry is not necessarily improper if the charges are clearly explained and read out to the employee, and the employee is provided an opportunity to defend themselves or cross-examine witnesses. (Para 6 )
P.B.GAJENDBAGADKAR, J.
(1) AN application made by the appellant, the central India Coalfields Ltd., under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour court, Nagpur at Bombay, sitting at Calcutta, for approval of its decision to dismiss its employee, the respondent Ram Bilas Shobnath, has been dismissed by the said tribunal. That is why the appellant has come to this court by special leave to challenge the validity and the propriety of the said order.
(2) THE appellant is a limited company owning and managing a colliery at Chirimiri in Madhya Pradesh. There are staff quarters built by the appellant On its land for the residence of its employees and their families. The respondent had been employed by the appellant as a workman who performed his duties as an underground Munshi in the said colliery. A complaint was received against the respondent from several other workmen in the appellants colliery that the respondent was guilty of rowdy and indecent behaviour at nignt on 5/06/1957. He went to the quarters of his co-workmen drunk and in a state of heavy intoxication. First he knocked violently at the door of Sarkar Babu, then at the door of Srivastava Babu and used dirty and filthy language of abuse. Then he moved to the door of Madhu Babu and began to tear down the screens and abused Madhu Babu. He then knocked at the door of Tulsi Babu who thought that there might be some accident and so he left his dinner and opened the door. The respondent then entered the room using filthy language and threw the articles in the room hither and thither. The neighbours then collected on the scene and with great difficulty took out the respondent from Tulsi Babus room. At this time Ram Anjari Munshi was moving with the respondent The complaint further alleged that the respondent was a drunkard and was in the habit of causing nuisance to his neighbours. Complaints had been made against him on several occasions in the past but no serious action had been taken against him. The complaint ended with the statement that if no serious action was taken against the respondent then the residents of the quarters would find it difficult to tolerate his indecent behaviour.
(3) THE charge contained in this complaint was explained to the respondent and enquiry was held on 8/06/1957. The statement made by the persons in the complaint against the respondent was read out in the presence of the respondent and he was asked what he had to say. * The respondents companion Ram Anjari Munshi also gave evidence in which he admitted the truth of the complaint made against the respondent. He confessed that he had also drunk liquor but he remembered the incident that took place. The respondent, however, pleaded that he was so drunk that he did not remember any thing about the incident. The respondent was then told that his companion had admitted that all the allegations made against him in the application were true and he was asked whether he had anything to say in defence. He replied that he had nothing to say in defence. As a result of this enquiry the officer made a report that the allegations made against the respondent were proved and in fact were admitted by the companion of the respondent and were in substance not denied by himself. So the officer thought that the respondent was guilty of misconduct as per Standing Order No. 29(5);and he reported accordingly. The appellants Manager considered the report and took into account the fact that several charge-sheets had been filed against the respondent and repeated warnings had been given to him, and so he held that there was no alternative but to dismiss him. Accordingly an order of dismissal was passed against him under Standing Order No. 29(5). He was asked to take one months wages from the accounts department in lieu of final settlement, after obtaining a clearance certificate from the department concerned as well as the stores department. It was under these ci
