1. Industrial dispute concerning the dismissal of a storekeeper for alleged manipulation of stores records and misappropriation of materials. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 376
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J.I., K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, V. Ramaswami, P. Satyanarayana Raju, JJ.
Management of The Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. Trivandrom - Appellant
Versus
Workmen - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 637 of 1964
Decided On : 29-10-1965
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :G.B. Pai, Advocate and J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of J.B. Dadachanji and Co.
For the Respondents:M.R.K. Pillai and M.S.K. Aiyanger, Advocates.
For the Appellant :G.B. Pai, Advocate and J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of J.B. Dadachanji and Co.
For the Respondents:M.R.K. Pillai and M.S.K. Aiyanger, Advocates.
If a domestic enquiry is unfair due to non-compliance with mandatory Standing Orders, the employer must prove misconduct by leading evidence before the Tribunal. Findings of fact by the Tribunal are generally not disturbed by the Supreme Court under Article 136 unless they are perverse.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Dispute - Domestic Enquiry - Fairness - If the domestic enquiry held against an industrial employee is fair, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be successfully challenged unless they are perverse in the sense that they are not based on any evidence at all; if the enquiry is held to be unfair, the employer may justify the dismissal by leading evidence before the Tribunal. (Para 5)
(B) Standing Orders - Compliance - Failure to comply with mandatory provisions of Standing Orders, such as providing three clear days' notice of the enquiry or allowing the assistance of a staff member of the employee's choice, vitiates the enquiry. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 136 - Scope of interference - Findings of fact recorded by an Industrial Tribunal as a result of its appreciation of evidence are normally not disturbed by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
An employee serving as a storekeeper was dismissed following a domestic enquiry on charges of manipulating store records to show false issues of raw materials. The Tribunal found the enquiry unfair due to non-compliance with Standing Orders regarding notice and representation. The employer subsequently led evidence to justify the dismissal, but the Tribunal disbelieved the witnesses due to the non-production of essential consumption records and log-sheets.
Findings of Court:
The domestic enquiry was vitiated due to failure to provide three clear days' notice and refusal to allow assistance from another staff member. The evidence led by the employer before the Tribunal was insufficient to prove misconduct, as key documents were not produced and witness testimony was contradictory.
Issues: Whether the domestic enquiry was fair and valid; whether the employer successfully proved the charges of misconduct through evidence led before the Tribunal; and whether the Tribunal's order for reinstatement and back wages was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: A domestic enquiry is invalid if it contravenes mandatory Standing Orders. Where an enquiry is unfair, the employer must prove the misconduct before the Tribunal. Findings of fact by an Industrial Tribunal are generally not disturbed under Article 136 unless they are perverse.
Result: The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claimed dismissal for misconduct was justified; respondent argued the domestic enquiry was unfair and the dismissal lacked merit. (Para 1 , 7 , 8 , 11 )
3. The domestic enquiry was vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory Standing Orders, and the appellant failed to prove misconduct through evidence before the Tribunal. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Findings of fact by an Industrial Tribunal based on evidence appreciation are generally not disturbed under Article 136 unless perverse. (Para 5 , 13 )
5. Appeal dismissed; order for reinstatement with full back wages upheld. (Para 17 )
6. What is the legal consequence if a domestic enquiry held against an industrial employee is found to be unfair?
If the enquiry is unfair, its findings do not justify the order of dismissal. In such cases, the employer may still justify the dismissal by leading independent evidence before the Tribunal. (Para 5 )
7. Does substantial compliance with the notice period required by Standing Orders for an enquiry suffice to validate the proceedings?
No. Where Standing Orders mandate a specific notice period, such as three clear days, failure to comply with the exact requirement introduces an infirmity that can vitiate the proceedings. (Para 7 )
8. To what extent does the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by an Industrial Tribunal under Article 136?
The Court is generally reluctant to examine evidence for itself and normally does not disturb findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal as a result of its appreciation of evidence. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT :
P.B. Gajendragadkar, CJI.
This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, the Management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., Trivandrum, and the respondents, its workmen through their Union. The dispute in question was in regard to the dismissal of one of the employees of the appellant, Mr N. Ramaswamy Pillai, who was a storekeeper at Trivandrum. The respondent urged that the dismissal of Pillai was unjustified and he was entitled to reinstatement. The appellant contended that the dismissal was justified and the workman concerned was entitled to no relief. The Tribunal has upheld the plea raised by the respondent and has directed the appellant to reinstate Pillai in its employment and to pay him his back wages in full from the date of his dismissal until the date of his reinstatement. It is the correctness and propriety of this award that is challenged before us by Mr Pai on behalf of the appellant.
2. It is common ground that Pillai was, at the relevant time, the Storekeeper in charge of stores in the appellant concern. In the course of his duties, he had to despatch raw materials to the processing plant where the product of titanium dioxide is manufactured. The material supplied in this case in respect of which the workman Pillai was charged is glue. This material is required for the processing of Titanium Dioxide.
3. On 15th September, 1961, Pillai was served with a memo to explain certain discrepancies found in the issue of stores of glue in the month of July 1961. An explanation was submitted by him on 16th September, 1961. Later, on 27th September, 1961, another memo was served on Pillai. This memo sought to correct the amount of glue mentioned in the first memo. On 23rd September, 1961, yet another memo of charge was served on him, and he gave his explanation on 26th September, 1961. The next day, he was served with a formal charge-sheet stating that an enquiry would be conducted against him on 30th September, 1961; the same day he was placed under suspension. An enquiry was then conducted on 30th September, 1961, and as a result of the inquiry, he was dismissed from service on 5th October, 1961.
4. Three charges were framed against Pillai. The first was that in the raw material stores requisitions particulars given below, the third copies retained in the requisition book showed the quantity of glue supplied by him as a bag of 93 lbs, but it was noted that he had altered the figure 1' to 2' bags of 186 lbs in the 1st and 2nd copies thereof, by over-writing, thereby showing a false issue of 1 extra bag of 93 lbs of Glue without actually issuing it to the requisition section of the plant. Then followed a reference to several entries made by Pillai in the requisition book. After they were set out, certain entries in the requisition book which showed suspicious overwriting were mentioned, the result of which was to change 1' bag of glue into 2'; this was Charge 2. The third charge was in relation to Requisition No. 7339 issued on 3rd August, 1961 by Mr R. V. George, and had alleged that Pillai had interpolated an entry in the said requisition relating to 1 bag of glue without actually issuing the material. The substance of the charges was that Pillai had falsely manipulated the stores records knowing the alterations to be false and with deliberate intention of defrauding the Company. The charge-sheet further stated that this conduct on the part of Pillai amounted to misconduct under Standing Order 20, sub-clause (4), of the Standing Orders for Staff.
5. Before the Tribunal, the preliminary question which arose for decision, was whether the domestic enquiry held against Pillai was fair or not. It is well-settled that if the domestic enquiry held against an industrial employee is fair, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be successfully challenged unless it is shown that the said findings are perverse in the sense that they are not based on any evidence at all. If
