Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, RAMA RAO
Nellimerla Jute Mills Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Labour Court, Guntur - Respondent
Decided On : 09-09-81
DOMESTIC ENQUIRY - FAIRNESS AND PROPERNESS - REFUSAL TO FURNISH COPIES OF STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES - EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 10(1)(d).
Fact of the Case:
A workman was dismissed from service after a domestic enquiry. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper as copies of statements recorded by the Management from witnesses were not furnished to the workman, a workman assisting the employee was won over by the Management, and an independent mediator was not examined. The High Court upheld the Labour Court's finding.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court erred in holding that the domestic enquiry was not proper or defective. The mere fact that the Management did not examine a particular witness, namely, the mediator Routhu Naidu, cannot make the domestic enquiry defective. It is open to the Management to examine such witnesses as it chooses and the Management cannot be compelled to examine any particular witness.
Issues: Whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper.
Ratio Decidendi: The principles to be followed by the Labour Court in dealing with punishments imposed after the conduct of the domestic enquiry are: 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 folowing from the evidence, adduced at the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to bit in judgment over the decision of the employer as an appellate body. the interference with the decision of the employer will be justified only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the management is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour practice or malafide. 4. Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity to the employer and the employee to adduce evidence before it, It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra,5. The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a petmo facie case. On the other band, the issue about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter on the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases, the point about the exercise of managerial functions does net arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry. 6. The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or afier the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective. 7. . . .
Final Decision: The finding that the domestic enquiry was not proper or defective is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to consider the validity of the finding as to misconduct and the quantum of punishment in the light of the principles laid down in this judgment.
( 2 ) CALLENGING the finding that the domestic enquiry was not proper, the appellant herein filed a Writ Petition No. 2418 of 1977. Our learned brother, Jayacbandra Reddy, J. observed that the question whether refusal to furnish a copy of the statements made by the witnesses during the preliminary investigation caused any prejudice has to be gone into at a later stage. He did not express any opinion on the question whether the workman who was assisting the employee was won over or not. He, however, agreed with the Labour Court that as the Management did not examine Routhu naidu an independent mediator, the Labour Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was defective. As the Labour court bad applied its mind and come to the conclusion that the dorcesic enquiry was not proper, he held that the High Court could not interfere with that discretion in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In the result, he dismissed the Writ Petition with costs. The appellant has preferred this Writ Appeal as against the said judgment.
( 3 ) SRI V. Jagannsdha Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the mere fact ihat the appellant, did not choose to examine a particular witness, namely, the mediator Routhu Naidu cannot make the domestic enquiry defective in any sense of the term. He submitted that as long as the domestic enquiiy is held according to the Standing Orders or rules of the company governing the domestic enquiries as long as the enquiry was not opposed to the principles of natural justice, the Labour court was not justified in holding that the enquiry was defective or not proper. Is was open to the Management to examine such witnesses as it chose and the Management cannot be compelled to examine any particular witness. The finding therefore on the preliminary issue that the domestic enquiry was defective or not proper cannot be allowed to stand.
( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to bear in mind the legal principles which are to be followed by the Labour Court in dealing with punishments imposed after the conduct of the domestic enquiry. There have been a number of decisions of the Supreme Court dealing with this question, but it is sufficient to refer to the decision of the supreme Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. V. The management where the principles are summarised as follows :"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
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
