Back
1965 Supreme(Pat) 93
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai and Tarkeshwar Nath JJ.
Motipur Zamindari Co.Private Ltd.
Versus
Kedar Nath Singh
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 141 of 1962 ; 305 of 1962 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 07, 1965
The Labour Court has the power to interfere with the finding of an enquiry officer if it finds that the finding is perverse, that the management has acted in mala fide, or that the enquiry was not fair and just.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) and 33(3)(b) - Enquiry - Labour Court - Powers - Perverse finding - Mala fide - Victimisation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Motipur Zamindari Co. Private Ltd., was dismissed from service after an enquiry found him guilty of theft of tractor oil. The company also sought permission from the Labour Court to dismiss another employee, Suraj Bhagat, who was allegedly involved in the theft. The Labour Court approved the dismissal of the petitioner but refused permission to dismiss Suraj Bhagat, holding that the finding of the enquiry officer was perverse and that the management had acted in mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Labour Court was justified in holding that the finding of the enquiry officer against Suraj Bhagat was perverse. The Court found that the evidence of two eye-witnesses against Suraj Bhagat came out at a very late stage and was not mentioned in the initial report of the incident. The Court also found that the enquiry officer had not taken into consideration material omissions in the evidence and that there was no evidence except the admission of the other employee against Suraj Bhagat in the early stages. The Court further held that the Labour Court was justified in refusing permission to dismiss Suraj Bhagat, as the management had acted in mala fide.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding that the finding of the enquiry officer against Suraj Bhagat was perverse? 2. Whether the Labour Court was justified in refusing permission to dismiss Suraj Bhagat?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Labour Court was justified in holding that the finding of the enquiry officer against Suraj Bhagat was perverse, as the evidence of two eye-witnesses against Suraj Bhagat came out at a very late stage and was not mentioned in the initial report of the incident. The enquiry officer had also not taken into consideration material omissions in the evidence and there was no evidence except the admission of the other employee against Suraj Bhagat in the early stages. 2. The Labour Court was justified in refusing permission to dismiss Suraj Bhagat, as the management had acted in mala fide. The management had a good cause to be annoyed with Suraj Bhagat, who was the Khazanchi of the union and had even given evidence in a criminal case against the Chief Agricultural Superintendent of the company. The management had also not acted in good faith while proposing to dismiss Suraj Bhagat.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed both the petitions filed by the company, upholding the decision of the Labour Court.
Tarkeshwar Nath, J.
1. These two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are for the quashing of the decision dated the 20th January, 1962, given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur, in the following circumstances. The petitioner in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 305 is an employee of the Motipur Zamindari Co. Private Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the company, for the sake of brevity). The other application, Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 141, has been filed by the company itself, and the company happens to be the employer of Khelawan Chamar and another person named Suraj Bhagat. It would be convenient to deal with each case separately. (MISCELLANEOUS JUDICIAL CASE NO 305 OF 1962).
2. The case of the petitioner was that he was employed as a ploughman by the company, and he was a member of the trade union, along with others. The company (respondent No. 2) did not like the formation of the trade union, and, consequently, the relations between the company on the one hand and the employees on the other became strained. There were certain strikes, lock-outs and criminal cases against the management and the workmen. It so happened that, on the 11th October, 1960, there was theft of some tractor oil belonging to the company. On the 12th October, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and an order of suspension passed by the company. A copy of the said " charge-sheet has been enclosed and marked A. The petitioner submitted his explanation on the 14th October, and a copy of the same has been marked B. The company did not accept the said explanation, and served a notice on the petitioner, informing him that a departmental enquiry would be held on the 28th October. The petitioner made a prayer for permission to get himself represented lay the Secretary of the union as the petitioner was illiterate but the permission was not granted.
Subsequently, the petitioner got a notice of dismissal dated the 10th November, 1960, Annexure E. Later on, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Sec.33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), seeking approval of the said dismissal of the petitioner. It should be stated here that Suraj Bhagat was the driver of a tractor belonging to the company, and there was a charge-sheet against him also. An enquiry was held in his case as well, and it was found that he was guilty of the charge levelled against him. There was thus another application by respondent No. 2 before the Industrial Tribunal under Sec.33(3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking permission of the Tribunal for dismissing Suraj Bhagat. These two applications were transferred to the Labour Court at Muzaffar-pur, and they were heard by Shri Kedar Nath Singh, the Presiding Officer of that Court. He came to the conclusion by his order dated the 20th January, 1962, that the management had made out a prima facie case for the dismissal of Khelawan Chamar, and, accordingly, he approved the action of the management for dismissing Khelawan Chamar. With regard to Sura.) Bhagat, he refused permission to dismiss him, as he was of the view that the finding of the enquiring officer in the case of Suraj Bhagat for dismissing him was a perverse one. In these circumstances, Khelawan Chamar has filed Miscellaneous Judicial case No. 305 of 1962 for quashing the said decision of the Labour Court, marked annexure F.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the Labour Court was perverse, inasmuch as it did not consider two important pieces of evidence which threw a considerable doubt about the complicity of the petitioner in the theft and the removal of the tractor oil belonging to the company (respondent No. 2). Before considering this point, it is worth while mentioning certain facts which are admitted in this case. The petitioner was caught on the 11th October, 1960, with a bottle of oil, and the said bottle was then wrapped up in
