IMPORTANT POINTS
Whereas the Management cannot resort to victimization and unfair labour practice so as to get rid of the Union leaders, they in turn are bound to maintain discipline.
Provisions of a statute must be construed having regard to the tenor of the terms used by the Parliament.
In the event an issue is determined in favour of the workmen, it will be permitted for the management to adduce fresh evidence before the Labour Court.
A Union leader does not enjoy immunity from being proceeded with in a case of misconduct.

Headnote:(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – If the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer on the materials placed before it was a possible view, the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to substitute its own judgment. (Para 14)
        (1958) SCR 514; (1972) 4 SCC 304 – Relied upon.
        (b) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11-A – Irrespective of whether a domestic enquiry has been held or not, the satisfaction under Section 11-A, about the guilt or otherwise of the workman concerned, is that of the Tribunal. (Para 19)
        (1973) 1 SCC 813; (1972) 1 SCC 595: (2005) 2 SCC 481: 2005(1) Supreme 447; 2007 (13) SCALE 681 – Relied upon.
        (c) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11-A – It is one thing to say that an administrative body or a quasi-judicial authority misdirected itself in determining the issue by posing unto itself a wrong question which would obviously lead to a wrong answer – But, it would be another thing to say that although the administrative authority or the quasi-judicial body did not lack inherent jurisdiction but committed a jurisdictional error in exercising its jurisdiction. (Para 20)
        [1969] 2 AC 147: (1969) 1 All ER 208; (1973) 1 SCC 813 – Relied upon.
        (d) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – Whereas the Management cannot resort to victimization and unfair labour practice so as to get rid of the Union leaders, they in turn are bound to maintain discipline. (Para 23)
        (e) Interpretation of Statute – It may not be a correct approach to proceed on the premise that an Act is a beneficent legislation in favour of the Management or the workmen – Provisions of a statute must be construed having regard to the tenor of the terms used by the Parliament. (Para 23)
        (f) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11-A – If issue is determined in favour of the Management, no fresh evidence is required to be adduced by it – However, in the event it is determined in favour of the workmen, it will be permitted for the management to adduce fresh evidence before the Labour Court which shall have the jurisdiction to appreciate the same. (Para 25)
        (1973) 1 SCC 813 – Relied upon.
        (g) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11-A – Report of the enquiry officer should not be interfered with unless it is perverse or betrays the principles of proportionality – Labour court shall not interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer only because it is lawful to do so or another view is possible. (Paras 26 and 28)
        (h) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 – First appellate court although is entitled to interfere with the findings of a Trial Court, ordinarily a finding of fact arrived at on the basis of the oral evidence by the Trial Court should be accepted. (Para 28)
        (2007) 4 SCC 163 – Relied upon.
        (i) Service Law – Departmental proceeding – Before a departmental proceeding, the standard of proof is not that the misconduct must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt – There should be pre-ponderance of probability – Further, when both the parties had adduced evidence, the onus of proof loses all its significance for all practical purpose. (Para 29)
        (2005) 7 SCC 764: 2005(7) Supreme 85 – Relied upon.
        (j) Labour Laws – Assault, intimidation are penal offences – A workman indulging in commission of a criminal offence should not be spared only because he happens to be a Union leader – A Union leader does not enjoy immunity from being proceeded with in a case of misconduct. (Para 33)
        (k) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11-A – Decision of the Labour Court should not be based on mere hypothesis or surmises – It cannot overturn a decision of the Management on ipse dixit – Its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act although is a wide one, must be judiciously exercised. (Para 34)
        (2006) 5 SCC 137: 2006(4) Supreme 415; (2006) 12 SCALE 122 – Relied upon.
        (2006) 12 SCC 554; (2004) 7 SCC 574: 2004(6) Supreme 232 – Distinguished.
       Facts of the case:
        1. Krishna Kishore Yadav, Intervenor and one R.P. Singh were employees of the respondent. They were said to be Union leaders. On or about 17.02.1984, the respondent received a complaint from one G. Natarajan with regard to acts of misconduct committed by the said workmen in the factory premises
        2. On the aforementioned allegations, a First Information Report was lodged.
        3. A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated. The delinquent workmen were placed under suspension. In the departmental proceedings, they were found guilty.
        4. An industrial dispute was raised. The Labour Court held that no charge had been proved against the workmen and as such they were entitled to be reinstated in service.
        5. A writ petition was filed by the appellant questioning the legality and validity of the said Award. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 31.07.2000 refused to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Labour Court.
        6. The appeal before the Division Bench was allowed as regards the question posed by the Labour Court as to whether the management had been able to prove the charges levelled against the workmen on the basis of the evidences brought on records.
       Findings of the Court :
        Labour court’s decision being based on hypotheses and surmises is not sustainable. High Court’s judgment does not require interference.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Application of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”), as noticed by this Court in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. The Management and Others,1 [(1973) 1 SCC 813], in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 348 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 9 of 2001.

3. Krishna Kishore Yadav, Intervenor and one R.P. Singh were employees of the respondent. They were said to be Union leaders. On or about 17.02.1984, the respondent received a complaint from one G. Natarajan with regard to acts of misconduct committed by the said workmen in the factory premises contending that while he was having discussions with one Shekhar Rao, representative of the contractor known as M/s. Techno Fab, the said workmen came and asked him as to whether there existed any arrangement for grant of first aid or not, whereto he replied that such a provision has to be made by the Company and not by the Contractor. Discussion therein ensued. The workmen were informed by Natarajan that the matter should be discussed with the Personnel Manager of the Company.

One Shri Dara Singh, another contractor being M/s. S.D. Construction also reached there. The same question was asked to Mr. Dara Singh to which also he replied that the grant of making provision of first aid was the duty of the Management and not that of the Contractor.

The workmen started misbehaving with the said persons using indecent and unparliamentary languages. They were abused in a harsh tone whereto an objection was raised by Shri Dara Singh whereupon he was abused in filthy languages and threatened him with dire consequences. He was also assaulted by iron rod by the intervenor herein. Thereafter Shri Dara Singh also picked up an iron rod. R.P. Singh also picked up another iron rod in his hand. With the intervention of the officers and some workers, they were separated. The said workmen thereafter instigated the workers to stop the work.

4. On the aforementioned allegations, a First Information Report was lodged.

A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated. The delinquent workmen were placed under suspension. In the departmental proceedings, they were found guilty. An industrial dispute was raised whereupon the appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication by a Labour Court, Jamshedpur. Before the Labour Court, a plea was raised by the workmen that they as Secretary and Vice-President of the workers of the Company had gone to Shri Natarajan and others for ventilating their grievances, but the management with a view to victimize them and by way of resorting to unfair labour practices had placed them under suspension.

5. Several issues were framed having regard to the pleadings of the parties by the learned Labour Court.

The question as to whether the domestic enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice or otherwise legal was taken up as a preliminary issue. The Enquiry Officer was examined before the Labour Court. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court by an order dated 16.08.1990 opined:

“6. Perused the inquiry report. In the inquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has mentioned the evidence of all witnesses on the basis of which decision was taken in respect of the charges. The oral and the documentary evidence has been mentioned and the decision is based on them. The show cause of the workmen has also been considered. Therefore, enquiry report cannot be said to be perverse.

7. Therefore, it is held that the domestic enquiry has been made following the principles of natural justice and is legal and the second question is answered against the workmen and in favour of the Management.”

6. However, by reason of a final award dated 17.02.1992, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 727

Cases Referred (10)