Back
1985 Supreme(Bom) 348
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Desai, J.
GANPAT NANA LOKE - Appellant
Vs.
THE AHMEDABAD JUPITER SPG. AND MFG. CO. LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 654 of 1981
Decided on : 04-10-1985
For the Appellant : Narayan B. Shetye, R.J. Kochar, Nishita Pradhan and D.K. Ghasias,
For the Respondent: Shekhar Napade, Shirish M. Naik for Respodent
The High Court has the power to interfere with the decision of the Industrial Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India if the decision is so improper that to allow it to stand is to allow perpetration of injustice.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - REINSTATEMENT - PROPRIETY OF PUNISHMENT - POWER OF LABOUR COURT - BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 - SECTION 78(1)(D) - ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a canteen vendor with over 29 years of service, was dismissed by the management for misconduct. He challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court, which found the enquiry fair but held that the evidence did not conclusively prove the petitioner's guilt. The Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages. The Industrial Court, on appeal, allowed the employer's appeal and dismissed the employee's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Labour Court was correct in finding that the enquiry was fair and proper. However, it disagreed with the Labour Court's conclusion that the evidence did not conclusively prove the petitioner's guilt. The High Court found that the petitioner had attempted to obtain goods on credit for his use using forged documents, and that this constituted an attempt to cause wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain for himself. However, the High Court also found that the punishment of discharge was not appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court erred in finding that the evidence did not conclusively prove the petitioner's guilt. 2. Whether the Industrial Court erred in allowing the employer's appeal and dismissing the employee's appeal. 3. Whether the High Court has the power to interfere with the decision of the Industrial Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Labour Court's finding that the evidence did not conclusively prove the petitioner's guilt was based on the fact that the Labour Court allowed additional evidence to be read, which was improper. However, the High Court found that the additional evidence did not change the fact that the petitioner had attempted to obtain goods on credit for his use using forged documents. 2. The Industrial Court erred in allowing the employer's appeal and dismissing the employee's appeal because it failed to consider the fact that the punishment of discharge was not appropriate in the circumstances of the case. 3. The High Court has the power to interfere with the decision of the Industrial Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India if the decision is so improper that to allow it to stand is to allow perpetration of injustice.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the order of the Industrial Court and restored the order of the Labour Court to the extent that the discharge order against the petitioner was quashed. However, the High Court did not order the reinstatement of the petitioner, but instead awarded him a lump sum payment in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
JUDGMENT :
Desai, J.
1. I think the Writ Petition may be disposed of on a very short point. However, a few facts are required to be noted. The petitioner was employed by the Ahmedabad Jupiter Spinning, Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., at Jupiter Mill No. 3. This Mill No. 3 has been taken over subsequently by the 2nd respondent Corporation. This was obviously because it became a "sick" unit as the term is used in common commercial parlance. The petitioner who had put in over 29 years of service as a canteen vendor was charge-sheeted for certain acts of misconduct under Standing Order 19(a) and was subsequently dismissed by the Mills by its order dated 20th February 1975. He thereafter made an approach as provided by Section 42 and subsequently on 4th July 1975 filed an application before the Labour Court under Sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. This, application was registered and came to be numbered as application No. 437 of 1975.
2. In the said application Written Statement was filed by the first respondent. The second respondent was joined to the said application later on. The necessary documents were produced by the employer before the Labour Court. The Labour Court permitted the petitioner to record the evidence of an additional witness Suryakant Rajaram Chavan. This evidence of Suryakant Rajaram, Chavan pertained to the incident which was the basis of the charge against the petitioner. Evidence was also led on the question whether the enquiry was fair and proper.
After considering all the material, the Labour Court passed its order dated 5th September 1980. It held that the enquiry was fair and proper. The Labour Court, however, held, particularly on consideration of the further evidence of Suryakant Rajaram Chavan, that the evidence in the enquiry did not conclusively prove that the petitioner was guilty of forgery and attempt to defraud the Company in conspiracy with the said Suryakant Rajaram Chavan. The Labour Court in its order also noted the fact that the applicant was in service for over 29 years and held that the punishment of discharge on such workman would be improper and disproportionate. Taking an overall view the second respondent was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service within 30 days of receiving copy of the said order. It was held, further that the workman was not entitled to any back wages.
3. The second respondent carried the matter in appeal to the Industrial Court which was numbered as Appeal (IC) No. 69 of 1980. The employee (the petitioner) preferred an appeal since back wages had been denied to him. The employee's appeal was numbered as Appeal (IC) No. 72 of 1980. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment by the President of the Industrial Court by its order dated 20th January 1981. He allowed the appeal of the employer and dismissed that of the employee. It is this order of the President which has been impugned in this Writ Petition.
4. The procedure followed by the Labour Court in allowing additional evidence was found improper by the President of the Industrial Court. However, it is unnecessary, in my opinion, to go into the question whether the Labour Court did possess the right to allow evidence to be read. We will assume that the Court did have the right to allow additional material to be considered and the employer was fully protected inasmuch as he was allowed to fully cross-examine the said Suryakant Rajaram Chavan. It is, however, impossible to accept that Suryakant Rajaram Chavan alone was totally guilty and that the petitioner was totally innocent or that at the highest he only assisted the said Suryakant Rajaram Chavan. Once it is found that the goods were sought to be obtained on credit for the use of the petitioner, then it would be clear that the petitioner was participating in the venture. It is
