Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo and K.C. Das Gupta, JJ.
W.M. Agnani - Appellant
Versus
Badri Das and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 881 of 1962
Decided On : 25-03-1963
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE - DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE - JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - ERROR OF LAW APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD - STANDING ORDERS - MISCONDUCT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a sub-editor of The Tribune, was dismissed from service by the respondents, the trustees of the newspaper, following an enquiry into allegations of misconduct. The appellant challenged the dismissal, alleging that it was an unfair labour practice and that the enquiry committee had acted without jurisdiction. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the appellant's contentions and ordered his reinstatement. The respondents challenged the award by way of a writ petition in the High Court, which quashed the reinstatement order.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in entertaining the writ petition and quashing the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Court found that the Tribunal had not committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record and that its findings on the merits of the case were reasonable and justified.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal. 2. Whether the Industrial Tribunal had erred in holding that the enquiry committee had acted without jurisdiction. 3. Whether the Industrial Tribunal had erred in holding that the misconduct alleged against the appellant did not constitute misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari is limited to cases where the impugned order suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. An error of fact, even if serious and apparent on the face of the record, cannot sustain a claim for the writ of certiorari. 2. The Industrial Tribunal had not committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record in holding that the enquiry committee had acted without jurisdiction. The resolution appointing the enquiry committee clearly showed that the enquiry was to be confined to the incident of November 16, 1959, and did not include the other charges of misconduct alleged against the appellant. 3. The Industrial Tribunal had not erred in holding that the misconduct alleged against the appellant did not constitute misconduct. The conduct proved against the appellant, which involved a private quarrel with a shop-keeper, did not fall within any of the categories of misconduct specified in the standing orders of the respondents.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed with costs throughout.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.
1. The Tribune is a daily English paper published at Ambala Cantt. in accordance with the will of the late Sardar Dayal Singh Majitha. Respondents 1 to 5 are the trustees appointed under the said will and as such they look after the affairs of the trust including those of The Tribune. In 1948, the appellant Agnani was appointed by the respondents to work as a Sub-editor of The Tribune. Accordingly, the appellant was working in the editorial section of which the Editor of the paper was the administrative head. On January 2, 1960, the respondents considered a complaint received by them from some of the residents of the Tribune. Colony regarding the conduct of the appellant. This complaint had reference to an incident which took place in the said colony on November 16, 1959. The respondents resolved to hold an enquiry into the alleged misconduct of the appellant and accordingly suspended him with immediate effect. By the resolution passed on this occasion, the respondents appointed R.B. Dewan Badri Das, Kanwar Sir Dalip Singh and Mr Ram Chandra to conduct the enquiry. The resolution authorised two of these trustees to conduct the enquiry, if necessary. It was resolved that the enquiry should be held after giving the appellant a charge-sheet and after receiving his Explanation in respect of it.
2. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was served on the appellant on January 11, 1960. It included 9 specific charges; charges 1-8 had reference in alleged acts of misconduct on the part of the appellant on seven different occasions, the first of them having occurred at the end of 1955, and the last on September 17, 1959; Charge 9 specifically referred to the incident which took place on November 16, 1959. Under this last charge, it was alleged that the appellant quarrelled with the lessee of the provision store in the Tribune Colony, created a rowdy scene and indulged in abusive and vulgar language,
3. Then followed an enquiry at which evidence was led and the enquiry committee submitted its report on February 11, 1960. According to the findings recorded by the Committee, all charges except 3 and 5 had been proved. After this report was received, the respondents considered the matter and came to the conclusion that it was necessary to terminate the services of the appellant, and so, after consulting the acting Editor, they resolved that the appellant's services should be terminated with effect from the forenoon of March 14, 1960, by way of disciplinary action as punishment for his continuous misconduct, and that his account be finally settled by April 15, 1960. This order was passed on March 12, 1960.
4. The dismissal of the appellant was then taken up by the Union and it became the subject-matter of reference for adjudication on May 5, 1960. Before the Tribunal, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that his dismissal amounted to an unfair labour practice and was intended to victimise the appellant for the prominent part he had taken in organising the Union of The Tribune employees. On the merits, it was contended that the enquiry committee acted without jurisdiction in dealing with charges 1-8 and that its finding on Charge 9 was also illegal, improper and without jurisdiction. These pleas were resisted by the respondents. They urged that the enquiry committee was competent to deal with all the charges, that its finding on the said charges were perfectly legitimate, that there was no victimisation involved in the order of dismissal and that the Tribunal could not sit in judgment over the findings of the enquiry committee or consider the propriety of the order of dismissal passed by the respondents.
5. the Tribunal held that the resolution by which the enquiry committee was appointed did not authorise the committee to consider any charges other than that relating to the incident that took place on November 16, 1959, and so, it came to the conclusion that the whole of the enquiry in respect of charges 1-8 as well as
AI
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
