important point
In the absence of a challenge to the legality or fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Court should be reluctant to either interfere with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the punishment awarded by the Punishing Authority.

Headnote:(a)Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Once a domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to the appellate tribunals and courts to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal – In the absence of a challenge to the legality or fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Court should be reluctant to either interfere with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the punishment awarded by the Punishing Authority. (Paras 15 and 16)
       (2005) 3 SCC 254; 2007 (13) SCALE 690 – Relied upon.
       (b)Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Well settled that yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from the one in disciplinary proceedings – While the standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probabilities. (Para 19)
       (c)Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – In a case where two views are possible on the evidence on record, then the Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in coming to a conclusion other than the one arrived at by the domestic Tribunal by substituting its opinion in place of the opinion of the domestic Tribunal. (Para 20)
       (1973) 1 SCC 813; (2006) 5 SCC 201 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case:
       1.The respondent-workman was working as Senior Dumper Operator under the Management of the appellant. The workman was deputed at Open Caste Mine, West Bokaro.
       2.On 2nd of March, 1994 after his duties the Respondent went to Rajiv Nagar area where Shri Harbans Kumar, Senior Officer (Security), along with a number of security personnel and other workers, was discharging his duties in connection with prevention of unauthorized constructions on the company’s land.
       3.The respondent-workman along with few others assaulted Shri Harbans Kumar with his hands and also resorted to brick-bating as a result of which Shri Harbans Kumar and Shri S.P. Yadav sustained injuries on the face and other parts of the body.
       4.Appellant-Management issued a charge sheet ands ultimately after giving full opportunity to the respondent-workman dismissed him.
       5.The respondent raised an industrial dispute.
       6.The Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent.
       7.Management, thereafter, filed the Writ Petition which was dismissed by the impugned order.
       Findings of the Court:
       Labour Court fell into the factual as well as legal error in setting aside the findings recorded by the domestic Tribunal. Learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have simply affirmed the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

judgment

Bhan, J. –

1.Leave granted.

2.Management is in appeal.

3.The respondent-workman was working as Senior Dumper Operator under the Management of the appellant. The workman was deputed at Open Caste Mine, West Bokaro on 2nd of March, 1994 during the first shift from 5.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. Respondent left the place of his duty before the end of his shift duty and went to Rajiv Nagar area where Shri Harbans Kumar, Senior Officer (Security), along with a number of security personnel and other workers, was discharging his duties in connection with prevention of unauthorized constructions on the companys land. The respondent-workman along with few others approached Shri Harbans Kumar and shouted at him using abusive language and threatened him with dire consequences in case the unauthorized construction was demolished. The respondent-workman, on being asked not to behave in the said manner, assaulted Shri Harbans Kumar with his hands and also resorted to brick-bating as a result of which Shri Harbans Kumar and Shri S.P. Yadav sustained injuries on the face and other parts of the body.

4.Appellant-Management issued a charge sheet to the respondent-workman whereby he was asked to show-cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under Clause 22(18) and 22(5) of the Standing Orders of the Company for the following misconduct: -

“(a)leaving work without permission

(b)indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour with a superior as well as co-worker.”

5.The respondent-workman submitted his reply denying all charges brought against him. The Management decided to conduct an enquiry and accordingly appointed Shri Madhusudan Das, Deputy Manager (Personnel) as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after giving full opportunity to the respondent-workman came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against him were established beyond reasonable doubt and submitted his report.

6.The Punishing Authority after going through the Enquiry Report and related enquiry papers, satisfied himself that charges levelled against the respondent had been established and recommended the dismissal of the respondent from the Company with immediate effect. The workman was accordingly dismissed on 23/25th of April, 1994.

7.The respondent raised an industrial dispute and the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act), referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication:

“THE SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of West Bokaro Collieries of M/s. TISCO Ltd. PO-Ghatotand, Dist. Hazaribagh in dismissing Shri Ram Pravesh, Ex. Sr. Dumper Operator from the services of the Company w.e.f 25.4.1994 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

8.The respondent on 3rd of October, 2003, made a statement before the Labour Court that he did not want to challenge the legality, fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry. On this statement being made, the Labour Court, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the respondent, held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The matter was adjourned to 14th of December, 2001 for hearing argument on merit.

9.The Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent by holding that the Management had failed to substantiate the charges brought against the concerned workman beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, order of dismissal passed against the concerned workman was set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

10.Management, thereafter, filed the Writ Petition before the High Court which was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge, aggrieved against which Management filed Letters Patent Appeal which has also been dismissed by the impugned order.

11.Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Raju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 158

2008(2) Supreme 27Supreme Court of indiaAshok Bhan & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd. — PetitionerversusConcerned Workman, Ram Pravesh Singh — RespondentAppeal (civil) 892 of 2008(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13281 of 2006)Decided on : 01-02-2008

important pointIn the absence of a challenge to the legality or fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Court should be reluctant to either interfere with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the punishment awarded by the Punishing Authority.

Cases Referred (3)

important point
In the absence of a challenge to the legality or fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Court should be reluctant to either interfere with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the punishment awarded by the Punishing Authority.