1. Removal of conductor for misconduct — failure to issue tickets — challenge to reinstatement order under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 806
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Gajadhar Nath - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7536 of 2021 (Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) No. 12369 of 2021)
Decided on : 08-12-2021
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Upasna Agrawal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Nagarkatti Kartik Uday, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Upasna Agrawal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Nagarkatti Kartik Uday, Advocates
Strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to domestic inquiries; logically probative material is sufficient. Misconduct can be proved by an Inspector's testimony even without passenger statements or an FIR, and Tribunals cannot reject such evidence based on technicalities of regular court proceedings.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Powers of Labour Courts – Tribunal returned a preliminary – Domestic inquiry – Leave granted – Present appeal at instance of employer whereby order passed by Industrial Tribunal1 was not interfered with – Tribunal directed that respondent2 be reinstated in service and ordered 50% of salary to be paid for period when he was not in employment – Held, Court find that order of Tribunal and that of High Court are clearly erroneous and not sustainable in law – Representative of employer has not been cross-examined on question that he has not inspected bus – He has deposed that when he tried to record statements of passengers, conductor misbehaved with him and used unruly words – Even that part of statement has not been disputed in cross-examination – Therefore, fact that Inspector was not able to record the names and addresses of passengers cannot be said to be unjustified – Since passengers are low-fare paying passengers, they might have been hesitant to get involved in issues of any action against conductor – Inspector had found that 17 passengers were not issued tickets and such statement of Inspector has also not been disputed in cross-examination – Court find that order of removal from service cannot be said to be unfair and unjust in any manner which would warrant an interference at hands of Tribunal and High Court – Three reasons recorded by Tribunal are absolutely perverse and not supported by any evidence – Tribunal had misapplied the basic principles of law and High Court has thereafter wrongly confirmed order – Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Employer contends strict Evidence Act rules are inapplicable to domestic inquiries; workman argues lack of passenger statements renders the Inspector's testimony unreliable. (Para 7 , 10 )
3. The Tribunal erred in requiring passenger testimonies and FIRs; the Inspector's testimony constitutes sufficient evidence of misconduct in a domestic inquiry. (Para 11 )
4. Strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to domestic inquiries; logically probative material is sufficient to prove misconduct. (Para 7 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed — orders of the High Court and Tribunal set aside — punishment order restored. (Para 12 )
6. Do the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 apply to domestic inquiries?
No, strict and sophisticated rules of evidence do not apply to domestic inquiries. All materials that are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible, including hearsay evidence, provided there is a reasonable nexus and credibility. (Para 7 )
7. What is the power of a Tribunal under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act when a domestic inquiry is defective?
If a domestic inquiry is found defective, the employer can lead evidence before the Tribunal to prove misconduct. The Tribunal then has the jurisdiction to decide the merits of the dismissal based on the evidence adduced. (Para 5 )
8. Is the failure to lodge an FIR or record third-party statements fatal to a finding of misconduct in departmental proceedings?
No. The non-lodging of an FIR has no bearing on proving misconduct in departmental proceedings. Furthermore, the absence of third-party statements does not necessarily invalidate the testimony of an inspecting officer if it is otherwise credible. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The order dated 20.1.2021 passed by the High Court of Allahabad is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal at the instance of the employer whereby the order dated 22.10.2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal1[For short, the ‘Tribunal’] was not interfered with. The Tribunal directed that the respondent2[For short, the ‘workman’] be reinstated in service and ordered 50% of the salary to be paid for the period when he was not in employment.
3. The workman was removed from service as conductor on account of misconduct on 14.12.2001. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Tribunal. On 5.5.2008, the Tribunal returned a preliminary finding that the domestic inquiry conducted into the charges levelled against the workman in question was not fair and proper. Therefore, the employer led evidence by examining Sheshmani Mishra, an Assistant Traffic Inspector3[For short, the ‘Inspector’] who had conducted inspection of the vehicle on 12.11.1998. The said witness supported the report submitted by him to the Assistant Regional Manager as Ex.P/10. He deposed that he checked the bus at Katra when the bus was coming from Banda to Allahabad. All the 17 passengers in the bus had stated that they had given the money but the conductor did not issue even a single ticket. Thus, the Inspector concluded that all the passengers were without ticket. He also deposed that when he tried to record the statement of the passengers, the conductor misbehaved with him and used unruly words which he could not state even before the Court. In the cross-examination, he deposed that his report was dated 13.11.1998 and that such report does not bear the signature of driver or the conductor. Further, no statement of any of the passengers was filed.
4. The learned Tribunal considering the said statement, set aside the order of removal interalia holding that the Inspector should have recorded the statements of passengers who have been found travelling without ticket and if they had shown reluctance in recording their statements, at least their oral statements, names and addresses must have been submitted. The Tribunal also returned a finding that the Inspector was not proved to have inspected the bus on 12.11.1998. It was also observed that if the conductor had misbehaved with the Inspector, why an FIR was not recorded in the concerned police station. On these grounds, the learned Tribunal set aside the order of removal.
5. The scope of an adjudicator under the Industrial Disputes Act, 19474[For short, the ‘Act’] may be noticed. The domestic inquiry conducted can be permitted to be disputed before the Tribunal in terms of Section 11A of the Act. This Court in a judgment reported as Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P.) Ltd. v. Management & Ors., (1973) 1 SCC 813 held that in terms of Section 11A of the Act, if a domestic inquiry has been held and finding of misconduct is recorded, the authorities under the Act have full power and jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and to satisfy themselves whether the evidence justifies the finding of misconduct. But where the inquiry is found to be defective, the employer can lead evidence to prove misconduct before the authority. This Court held as under:
“32. From those decisions, the following principles broadly emerge :-
(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide upon the quantum of punishment are mainly managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a Tribunal, the latter has power to see if action of the employer is justified.
(2) Before imposing the punishment, an employer is expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if applicable, and principles of natural justice. The enquiry should not be an empty formality.
(3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an employer, and the finding of misconduct is plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the said
