1. Industrial dispute concerning the dismissal of workmen for gross misconduct, specifically forcible confinement of management and disobedience of suspension orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 395
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J.I., K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, V. Samaswami, P. Satyanarayana Raju, JJ.
Workmen of Lamabari Tea Estate - Appellant
Versus
Management - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 714 of 1964
Decided On : 03-11-1965
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :C.B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate (K.P. Gupta,) Advocate
For the Respondent:P.K. Goswamy, Senior Advocate (R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate.
For the Appellants :C.B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate (K.P. Gupta,) Advocate
For the Respondent:P.K. Goswamy, Senior Advocate (R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate.
A domestic inquiry is procedurally flawed if the enquiring officer is also a witness. However, if an industrial tribunal independently verifies the evidence and finds the charges of misconduct proved, the court will uphold the dismissal despite the flawed inquiry.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) - Misconduct - Domestic Enquiry - Procedure - The enquiry should always be entrusted to a person who is not a witness. If not possible, an officer from another estate should be appointed. An inquiry cannot be said to be held properly when the person holding the enquiry relies on his own statements. (Para 5)
(B) Industrial Dispute - Tribunal’s findings - Where the Tribunal has independently examined the evidence and found the charges of misconduct and disobedience proved, the court will not interfere with the decision simply because the preceding domestic enquiry was procedurally flawed. (Paras 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Labourers were refused entry to work for arriving late, resulting in a protest where they surrounded the office and confined the management staff. Following the intervention of police and military, the labourers were charged with misconduct and disobedience of suspension orders. After domestic inquiries, they were dismissed.
Findings of Court:
The domestic inquiry was procedurally flawed as the Manager acted as witness, prosecutor, and enquiring officer. However, the Tribunal's findings were based on a proper examination of witnesses and evidence, confirming the misconduct and disobedience.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the workmen was justified despite the procedural defects in the domestic inquiry conducted by the management.
Ratio Decidendi: While a domestic inquiry should be conducted by a person who is not a witness to ensure fairness, the court will not interfere with a Tribunal's decision if the Tribunal has independently verified the facts and found the charges proved through evidence.
Result: The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the workmen's protest was peaceful or rowdy and whether the subsequent dismissals for misconduct and disobedience of suspension orders were justified. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. The domestic inquiry was procedurally defective as the Manager acted as witness and prosecutor, but the Tribunal's findings were corroborated by evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Domestic inquiries must be conducted by a non-witness; however, flawed inquiries may be upheld if the Tribunal finds sufficient evidence to support the guilt. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the Tribunal's decision upholding the dismissal of the workmen is affirmed. (Para 7 )
6. What is the proper procedure for conducting a domestic inquiry regarding employee misconduct?
A domestic inquiry should be entrusted to a person who is not a witness in the case. If such a person is unavailable, an officer from another estate should be appointed to ensure the enquiring officer's role remains distinct from that of a witness or prosecutor. (Para 5 )
7. Can a court or tribunal accept the findings of a procedurally flawed domestic inquiry?
Yes, if the necessary facts are admitted or if independent evidence presented before the tribunal proves the charges, the court may accept the result of a flawed domestic inquiry despite procedural defects. (Para 6 , 7 )
JUDGMENT :
M. Hidayatullah, J.
This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial award of the Labour Court, Assam in a dispute between the management of the Lamabari Tea Estate (owned by the Consolidated Tea and Lands Co. Ltd., Mazbat) and the workmen of the Tea Estate represented by the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha. On June 5, 1961 the Government of Assam referred this dispute by Notification No. GLR-230/61/10 for the adjudication of the following matter of dispute among others:
"(1) Whether the Management of Lamabari T.E. were justified in dismissing the following workmen viz. (1) Shrimati Hara (2) Shri Sova, (3) Smt Somavia, (4) Shrimati Janoo, (5) Shri Golapi, (6) Smt Tulsa, (7) Solu, (8) Smt Ratani, (9) Smt Gaili and (10) Smt Donmonia for alleged gross misconduct?
(2) If not, are they entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof?
(3)(a)-(b) * * *"
The facts of this dispute may now be stated briefly.
2. On October 29, 1960, five labourers (including some women) arrived late for work. The work at the Tea Estate commenced at 8 a.m. and time was announced by sounding a siren at 6, 7 and 8 a.m. The labourers were refused work as they were late. According to the Sangha they were pushed out of the line by M.C. Loughlin, the Manager and according to the management they were turned away by the Assistant Manager but not pushed. Immediately the labourers, who numbered a few hundreds, stopped work and surrounded the office, demanding to see the Manager, and seeking an assurance from him that delay in attendance would not be seriously taken note of. It seems that M.C. Loughlin who had newly taken over as Manager was enforcing punctuality and this was resented by the labourers. The Sangha also alleged that he was opposed to trade union activity and was precipitating matters to get rid of trade union workers on the Tea Estate. The Sangha and the labourers stated that the demonstration was peaceful while the management alleged that the labourers were rowdy and threatening. It appears that the Manager and his Assistant and the staff could not or did not leave the office and remained confined there from morning to night. First the police and then the military were summoned and on the latter's arrival the crowd melted away and the labourers returned to their homes. The Manager reported the matter to the police but as no action was taken, he himself filed a criminal complaint. As we are not concerned with it we need not refer to it here.
3. On November 3, 1960 the management charged the labourers whose names are given in the notification forcibly and illegally confining the Manager, the Assistant Manager and the staff in the office between 9.30 a.m. and 8 p.m., and with shouting slogans and abusing the Manager, offences under Standing Orders 10(a)l and 10(a)7 of the Tea Estate. These labourers were also placed under suspension from November 4, 1960 pending enquiry into the charges. The labourers however, continued to work, refusing to obey the order of suspension. On November 12, 1960 a second charge was served on them for disobeying the order of suspension, an offence under Standing Order 10(a)(i).
4. Two separate inquires were held into the two charges. On the first charge the inquiry was held from 5th November and on the second from the 14th of the same month. A common order in respect of both charges was passed on December 29, 1960 against each of the tea labourers. They were dismissed on and from December 29 with all emoluments paid up-to-date. The Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha then raised an industrial dispute and the reference was made.
5. The inquiry which was held by the management on the first charge was presided over by the Manager himself. It was conducted in the presence of the Assistant Manager and two others. The enquiry was not correct in its procedure. The Manager recorded the statements cross-examined the labourers who were the offenders and made and recorded his own statements on facts and questioned the offending lab
