1. Employees dismissed for undertaking private work during leave — Application under Section 33-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Challenge to the validity of domestic enquiry. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 353
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J.I., K.N. Wanchoo,K.C. Das Gupta, JJ.
Saran Motors Private Ltd., New Delhi - Appellant
Versus
Vishwanath and another - Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 755-66 of 1963
Decided On : 31-03-1964
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :S.K. Kapur, Senior Advocate with B.L. Khanna, S. Murty and K.K. Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Janardhan Sharma, Advocate.
For the Appellant :S.K. Kapur, Senior Advocate with B.L. Khanna, S. Murty and K.K. Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Janardhan Sharma, Advocate.
A domestic enquiry is not biased or invalid simply because it is conducted by the employer's lawyer. If the process is fair and findings are supported by evidence, the Tribunal cannot ignore those findings merely because it prefers different evidence.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 33 and 33-A - Discharge of employees - Validity of domestic enquiry - Bias of Enquiry Officer - Whether a lawyer engaged by the employer is incompetent to conduct a domestic enquiry - It is not sustainable to hold that a person becomes incompetent to hold a domestic enquiry merely because they are sometimes employed by the employer as a lawyer. Domestic enquiries are generally conducted by officers of the employer; thus, a lawyer paid for the enquiry is not inherently biased. (Para 6)
(B) Domestic Enquiry - Appreciation of Evidence - Perversity - The fact that an Enquiry Officer prefers the evidence of the management over that of the employees does not indicate a double standard or bias. A Tribunal cannot ignore findings of a domestic enquiry simply because it might have preferred different evidence, provided the enquiry was fair and a reasonable opportunity was given to the employees. (Para 7)
(C) Domestic Enquiry - Procedural Irregularity - Failure of the Enquiry Officer to make formal inspection notes during a spot visit does not invalidate the entire enquiry, especially when the conclusions are supported by evidence and the core question of fact is proved. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Two employees were discharged from service following a domestic enquiry which found they had absented themselves from work on false pretexts to undertake private work for the employer's customers. The employees challenged the discharge under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging that the enquiry was biased and the findings were perverse. The Industrial Tribunal ruled in their favor, citing the Enquiry Officer's professional relationship with the employer and a perceived double standard in evidence appreciation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the professional engagement of a lawyer by an employer does not disqualify that lawyer from conducting a fair domestic enquiry. Furthermore, the preference of one set of witnesses over another by the Enquiry Officer does not constitute perversity or bias, and the absence of inspection notes is not a fatal flaw if the findings are supported by evidence.
Issues: Whether the domestic enquiry was vitiated by bias due to the Enquiry Officer's relationship with the employer, whether the findings were perverse due to the appreciation of evidence, and whether the lack of inspection notes invalidated the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: A domestic enquiry is not rendered invalid merely because it is conducted by a lawyer employed by the employer. If the enquiry is conducted fairly, providing a reasonable opportunity for the employees to present their case, and the findings are supported by evidence, the Tribunal cannot substitute its own view of the evidence for that of the Enquiry Officer.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether domestic enquiry was vitiated by bias and perverse findings — Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the correctness of findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. (Para 1 , 4 )
3. Employment as a lawyer for the employer does not constitute bias — Preferring one set of witnesses over another is not a double standard — Absence of inspection notes does not invalidate enquiry. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. A domestic enquiry is not vitiated by the Enquiry Officer being the employer's lawyer or by the absence of inspection notes if conducted fairly and supported by evidence. (Para 6 , 8 )
5. Appeals allowed — Awards of the Industrial Tribunal set aside — Applications under Section 33-A dismissed. (Para 8 )
6. Does the fact that an Enquiry Officer is occasionally employed as a lawyer by the employer render the domestic enquiry biased or incompetent?
No. Domestic enquiries are generally conducted by the employer's officers. A lawyer who is not a paid officer but is paid remuneration for holding the enquiry is not incompetent simply because they represent the employer in other matters. (Para 6 )
7. Does the Enquiry Officer's decision to believe management witnesses while discarding respondent witnesses constitute a double standard or bias?
No. Preferring one set of evidence over another or dealing with evidence of different parties with varying levels of detail does not necessarily indicate bias or a double standard in evidence appreciation. (Para 7 )
8. Does the failure of an Enquiry Officer to record formal inspection notes invalidate a domestic enquiry?
No. The failure to make inspection notes does not invalidate the enquiry if the core factual issues are supported by evidence and the respondents were given a reasonable opportunity to prove their case. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT :
Gajendragadkar, CJI.
The short question which arises for our decision in these two appeals is whether the domestic enquiry held by the appellant, Saran Motors (P) Ltd., against two of its employees, Vishwanath and Har Saran Singh, was vitiated by the fact that the Enquiry Officer began and conducted the enquiry with a bias against the employees and in favour of the appellant and whether his conclusions suffer from the vice that they are not supported by any evidence and can be characterised as perverse.
2. The present proceedings began with two applications made by the two employees under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). By their applications, the two employees alleged that they had been dismissed from service by the appellant in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, it appears that on the 7th of March, 1960, orders of discharge simplicitor were served by the appellant on the two employees who will be called the two respondents hereafter. The two respondents pleaded that these orders of discharge really amounted to their dismissal and, since, according to them, Section 33 had been contravened, the said orders ought to be set aside. The Industrial Tribunal which heard these complaints has upheld the respondent's case and has directed the appellant to reinstate the respondents and give them consequential reliefs. It is against this order that the present appeals have been brought before us by the appellant by special leave.
3. The Incident which ultimately led to the dismissal of the respondents took place on the 8th of June, 1959. The appellant is a private limited company and has a branch in Delhi and it carries on the business of automobile engineers. Respondent 1, Vishwanath; was working with the appellant in the capacity of a technical assistant to the Director of the appellant's company while Respondent 2, Har Saran Singh, was working as an assistant fitter in the company. On the 8th of June, 1959 both of them had taken leave. Respondent 1 had alleged that he was ill while Respondent 2 had stated that his grandfather was ill. The Manager, however, suspected that the excuses given by the two respondents were false and that they had been really absenting themselves from work in order to earn money by taking private work. That is why a kind of raiding party was arranged by the Management consisting of the Manager, Mr. Bhardwaj and Mr. Madan Gopal. These persons engaged a taxi and went to the compound of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. There they found Vishwanath was working on a car No. DLS 2512 (Hillman) belonging to Sardar Atma Singh and Har Saran Singh was working on a car No. DLG 4917 belonging to Dr. Thakur Dass. Both these owners were customers of the appellant. Having seen that the respondents had absented themselves on false pretexts and had really taken private work, charge-sheets were served on them and the same were followed by a domestic enquiry. At the enquiry, evidence was led both by the appellant and the respondents. Mr. Chadha who held the enquiry found against the respondents and accepted the appellant's case. On receiving his report, the appellant passed the impugned orders of discharge against the two respondents.
4. Before the Industrial Tribunal it was urged by the respondents that the enquiry held by Mr. Chadha was unfair and his contusions were perverse. The appellant denied these allegations and contended that the enquiry was fair and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the correctness or propriety of findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Tribunal has accepted the respondent's contention and has made the awards which have given rise to these two appeals.
5. The first question which we have to decide is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that Mr. Chadha had a bias in favour of the appellant, and so, was incompetent to hold the enquiry. It appears that Mr. Chadha is sometimes engaged by the appellant as a lawyer in industrial ma
