Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1963 Supreme(SC) 314

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo and K.C. Das Gupta, JJ.
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Workmen And Another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 636 of 1962
Decided On : 08-05-1963

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :R.J. Kolah, Advocate and J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of J.B. Dadachanji and Co.
For the Respondent:K.T. Sule, Anand Swaroop and Janardan Sharma, Advocates

Domestic enquiries must be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, including fairness, opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and notice of the enquiry.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - REINSTATEMENT - WAGES DURING ENFORCED UNEMPLOYMENT - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DOMESTIC ENQUIRIES - FAIRNESS - CROSS-EXAMINATION - NOTICE OF ENQUIRY - RELIANCE ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE - INVALIDITY OF ENQUIRY.
Fact of the Case:

Five workmen were dismissed by the appellant company for alleged misconduct. The Industrial Tribunal held that the dismissals were unjustified and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The company challenged the award on the ground that the enquiries were properly conducted and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the findings recorded at the enquiries.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the enquiries were not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the dismissals were unjustified. The Court set aside the award in respect of three workmen who had agreed to a compromise with the company, and confirmed the award in respect of the remaining two workmen.
Issues: 1. Whether the domestic enquiries were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the findings recorded at the enquiries?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Domestic enquiries must be conducted honestly and bonafide with a view to determine whether the charge framed against a particular employee is proved or not. 2. If an officer claims that he had himself seen the misconduct alleged against an employee, in fairness steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. 3. In domestic enquiries, the employer should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman charged, given an opportunity to the workman to cross-examine the said evidence and then should the workman be asked whether he wants to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. 4. It is not fair in domestic enquiries against industrial employees that at the very commencement of the enquiry, the employee should be closely cross-examined even before any other evidence is led against him. 5. The workman should be given prior notice of the date of the enquiry so that he has an opportunity to prepare himself to make his defence at the said enquiry and to collect such evidence as he may wish to lead in support of his defence. 6. The enquiry officers should not rely on their personal knowledge or the knowledge of their colleagues in coming to a conclusion on the guilt of the workman.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the award in respect of three workmen who had agreed to a compromise with the company, and confirmed the award in respect of the remaining two workmen.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The case involves dismissal of five workmen for alleged misconduct, referred under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, with the Tribunal ordering reinstatement and back wages [1000668970001][1000668970002][1000668970006]. - Three separate enquiries were held for incidents on May 1, August 12, October 14, and October 20, 1952, leading to dismissals [1000668970005]. - For three workmen (Mehnga Ram, Janak Raj, Daulat Singh), parties agreed to set aside the award, treat dismissal as discharge simpliciter, and pay Rs 3500 each plus gratuity and provident fund [1000668970007]. - In Malak Ram's enquiry, officers who witnessed the misconduct conducted it, rejected his explanation based on personal knowledge, cross-examined him first, and lacked prior notice of enquiry date, violating natural justice [1000668970008][1000668970009][1000668970011][1000668970012][1000668970013][1000668970014]. - Enquiry officers must not hold enquiries if they witnessed misconduct; evidence against workman should be led first, followed by cross-examination opportunity and explanation; prior notice of enquiry date is fair [1000668970011][1000668970012][1000668970013]. - In Vishwa Nath's enquiry, officers disbelieved his witnesses based on attendance register without opportunity to explain, inconsistency not put to witness, and evidence from another enquiry without cross-examination chance, violating natural justice [1000668970015][1000668970016][1000668970017][1000668970018][1000668970019]. - Tribunal correctly held enquiries invalid, dismissals unjustified; Supreme Court confirmed award for Malak Ram and Vishwa Nath, set aside for others per compromise [1000668970014][1000668970019][1000668970020].

What are the requirements for conducting domestic enquiries in accordance with the principles of natural justice?

Whether the domestic enquiries were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice?

Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the findings recorded at the enquiries?

JUDGMENT :

Gajendragadkar, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, the Associated Cement Companies Ltd., and the respondents, their workmen. The dispute was in regard to the dismissal of five workmen employed by the appellant at its Bhupendra Cement Works, Surajpur. The said workmen are: (l) Mehnga Ram, Bar Bender, (2) Janak Raj Soni, Store- Clerk,: (3) Vishwa Nath Bali, Painter, (4) Daulat Singh, Motor Driver and (5) Malak Ram Khanna, Turner. The respondents contended that the dismissal of the said workmen was unjustified, and they demanded that the said dismissed workmen should be reinstated and their wages for the period of enforced unemployment should be paid to them. The Government of Punjab referred this dispute for adjudication to this Industrial Tribunal Punjab, Patiala, under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947).

2. It appears that on May 1, 1952, the appellant's management had arranged a cinema show in the Club grounds at Surajpur for the entertainment of its workmen. At. about, 8 p.m. when the film was being exhibited, confusion was created in the Hall by some employees and shouts were raised. Amongst the workmen who raised these shouts was Malak Ram. Owing to the rowdyism thus created by the workmen, the cinema show had to be cancelled. It was in respect of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by Malak Ram on May 1, 1952 that a charge-sheet was given to him and an enquiry held against him.

3. On August 12, 1952, at 7.00 a.m., Mehnga Ram, Janak Raj and Daulat Singh, it was alleged, had stopped workmen from getting into the factory and starting their work in time after they had punched their cards and taken their tokens. The said three workmen are also alleged to have shouted slogans causing cessation of work in the factory for about half-an-hour. In respect of this alleged misconduct of the said three workmen, charges were supplied to them and an enquiry was held against them.

4. On October 14, 1952, at 4 p.m, Mehnga Ram and Janak Raj who were concerned with the incident of August 12, are alleged to have collected some workers in front of the man office building on the way to the grain-shop and in the meeting so organised they instigated their co-workers to go on strike and to resort to violence. In consequence, some of the officers of the appellant were abused and the noise created at the meeting disturbed the office work. This incident also gave rise to charge-sheets against the said two workmen and a subsequent enquiry.

5. On October 20, 1952, at about 7 a.m., Mehnga Ram, Janak Raj, Vishwa Nath and Daulat Singh are alleged to have stopped workmen at the Factory Gate from entering the factory and to have prevented them from going to their duties for some time. At this time, the said workmen are also alleged to have indulged in shouting hostile slogans. This incident gave rise to charge-sheets and an enquiry.

6. The record shows that three different Boards of enquiry were constituted to hold enquiries into the several charge-sheets served on the different workmen in question. The first enquiry was about the incident of May 1, 1952 and it was confined to Malak Ram. The second enquiry was about the incident of August 12, 1952, and it concerned Mehnga Ram, Janak Raj and Daulat Singh; and the last enquiry was in regard to the incidents which took place on October 14, and October 20, 1952 - in regard to the first of these Mehnga Ram and Janak Raj were involved and in regard to the second one Mehnga Ram, Janak Raj, Vishwa Nath and Daulat Singh were concerned. It is thus clear that Malak Ram was concerned with the incident of May 1, 1952 and Vishwa Nath with the incident of October 20, 1952. As a result of the findings recorded at the said enquiries, the appellant dismissed all the five workmen concerned.

7. Before the Industrial Tribunal, it was urged by the respondents that none of the three enquiries was conducted according to the principles of natural just

Click Here to Read the rest of this document