2006 Supreme(SC) 602

2006(5) Supreme 636
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
M/s. Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Khem Chand & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6677 of 2004
Decided on 12-7-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Raj Birbal, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Rohina Nath, J. Muzarffar and Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S. Borthakur (For Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Advocate (N.P.)), Pradeep Misra and Malvika Trivedi, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court while exercising powers under writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with factual findings of Labour Court which are based on appreciation of facts adduced before it by evidence.

Headnote:LABOUR LAW — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25F — Dismissal from service — Principles governing jurisdiction of Tribunals when adjudicating disputes relating to dismissal or discharge — High Court while exercising powers under writ jurisdiction cannot deal with aspects like whether quantum of punishment for a particular misconduct was sufficient or not — Respondent employed as fitter with appellant in 1956 was charge-sheeted with misconducts in 1976 — Services were terminated on basis of report of inquiry officer who found charges proved — Labour Court found domestic inquiry not free and fair but on basis of evidence examined before it held that charges were found proved and order dismissing respondent from service was upheld — High Court allowed writ and directed appellant to pay back wages to extent of 75% till date of superannuation with benefits of service — Appeal — High Court gravely erred in its findings that evidence of respondent did not inspire confidence or that evidence was not considered by Labour Court — High Court was not right in interfering with well considered order passed by Labour Court — However taking a sympathetic and lenient view in matter and in facts and circumstances of case appellant directed to pay Rs.1,25,000 in full and final settlement of all claims.

       Held : This Court in a judgment reported in 1973 (1) SCC 813 (The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. etc. vs. The Management & ors. etc.) exhaustively referred to various decisions of this Court and gave a clear picture of the principles governing the jurisdiction of the Tribunals when adjudicating disputes relating to dismissal or discharge. (Para 8)

       This Court in the above judgment held that even if no inquiry has been held by the employer or the inquiry held is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra. Hence, the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent has no merit in view of the above verdict of this Court and referred to above.(Para 9)

       We have also perused the award dated 7.12.1989 passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court in the concluding part of its award has held that the charges framed against the workman are charges of misconduct of serious nature and, therefore, it agreed with the argument of Management that it was not in the interest of Management and industrial peace to retain such a person in service who was guilty of creating indiscipline in the factory which affects the production of the factory adversely. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Management had succeeded in proving the charges against the workman before the Court. Hence, the Labour Court held the dismissal of the workman from service from 8.3.76 by the Management as justified, proper and lawful and the concerned workman was held to be not entitled to receive any benefit or relief. However, the High Court, as stated earlier, interfered with the factual and categorical findings of the Labour Court and ordered reinstatement with back wages and other benefits. In our opinion, the High Court while exercising powers under writ jurisdiction cannot deal with aspects like whether the quantum of punishment meted out by the Management to a workman for a particular misconduct is sufficient or not. This apart, the High Court while exercising powers under the writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the factual findings of the Labour Court which are based on appreciation of facts adduced before it by leading evidence. In our opinion, the High Court has gravely erred in holding that the evidence of respondent no.1 was not considered by the Labour Court and had returned finding that the evidence of respondent no.1 did not inspire any confidence. We are of the opinion that the High Court is not right in interfering with the well considered order passed by the Labour Court confirming the order of dismissal. (Para 10)

       It is now stated that the respondent no.1 has retired from service on superannuation on 30.9.1996. He was dismissed from service for the misconduct alleged and proved against him by the Management on 8.3.1976. He had been without any employment or without any income whatsoever. Taking a sympathetic and lenient view of the matter and peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, even though the factory unit of the appellant is closed, we direct the appellant-Management to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in full and final quit of all the claims of the appellant and the respondents.(Para 11)