Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji
HARCHURA TEA ESTATE - Appellant
Versus
LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 2687 Of 1956
Decided On : MARCH 13, 1959
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - EVIDENCE ACT - APPLICABILITY - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - DISMISSAL OF WORKERS - REINSTATEMENT - ONUS OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
Four workers were dismissed from service for violent and riotous conduct during a cinema show. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the dismissal, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the order and directed reinstatement. The Management challenged the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had erred in its decision by: 1. Applying the strict rules of the Evidence Act to the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. 2. Holding that the onus of proof was on the Management to establish the charges against the workers beyond all reasonable doubt. 3. Rejecting as inadmissible certain documents and statements which had been tendered without objection before the Industrial Tribunal. 4. Misconceiving its jurisdiction by confusing a prima facie case with a conclusive case before a criminal court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Evidence Act applies to the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. 2. Whether the onus of proof is on the Management to establish the charges against the workers beyond all reasonable doubt. 3. Whether certain documents and statements which had been tendered without objection before the Industrial Tribunal were admissible in evidence. 4. Whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Evidence Act does not apply to the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal is not bound to follow the strict rules of evidence and should not be astute to discover technicalities of the Evidence Act and apply them. 2. The onus of proof is not on the Management to establish the charges against the workers beyond all reasonable doubt. The Management is only required to establish a prima facie case. 3. Documents and statements which have been tendered without objection before the Industrial Tribunal are admissible in evidence, even if they would not be admissible under the Evidence Act. 4. The Labour Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal only if it involves a substantial question of law. A substantial question of law does not include a question whether a decision is based on any evidence at all or not.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and made the Rule and interim injunction absolute.
( 1 ) THIS is an application by Messrs Williamson Magor and Co. , Ltd. the Managing Agents of the Harchura Tea Estate, under Article 226 of the Constitution. It relates to an industrial dispute between the Company's workers and the Management. It seeks for a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India dated 24-4-1956, allowing the appeal from the Industrial Tribunal and setting aside the order of dismissal and directing reinstatement of four workers.
( 2 ) THE important questions canvassed on this application are the applicability of the Evidence Act, its strict rules of technicality, proof and onus to the procedure before the Industrial Tribunal and the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction by the Labour Appellate Tribunal under Section 7 (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act.
( 3 ) THE four workers who were dismissed are the present respondents Ganpat, Sugan, Teteng and Lalit. The Industrial Tribunal made its Award on 14-4-1954, the reference of the dispute to the Tribunal was described as a dispute between the workmen of Harchura Tea Estate and the Management of Harchura Tea Estate.
( 4 ) THE dispute between the parties arose when Ganpat, Lalit and Sugan and his son Teteng who are labourers at the Harchura Tea Estate were dismissed from service in the said Tea Estate with effect from 17-4-1952. The points on which the Tribunal was required to make an Award were : (a) Is the dismissal of Ganpat, Sugan, Teteng and Lalit justified? (b) If not, should they be entitled to reinstatement? If so under what terms and conditions? (c) Failing reinstatement, are they entitled to any other relief?
( 5 ) THE second issue related to the discharge of the wives of these workmen but on the same terms.
( 6 ) THE Industrial Tribunal found in favour of the Management. The Labour Appellate Tribunal upset that decision.
( 7 ) BEFORE I discuss the points involved in this application, I shall briefly state the facts which gave rise to the occasion. On 10-5-1952, there was a cinema show which was disliked by certain workers and it is alleged that Ganpat, Sugan, Teteng and Lalit were violent and riotous and obstructed the cinema show, and caused disturbance to the audience. There was confusion, there was beating, and there was damage to eletric cables and wires. The incident was reported to Mr. Stewart, the Manager, on 11-5-1952. On the day of the incident, Mr. Stewart was not on the spot. Mr. Stewart took statements from different persons and issued a charge-sheet to these four workers directing them to show cause why they should not be dismissed. In fact, on 13-5-1952, there was a joint petition of more than 112 workmen asking for the removal of these four respondents workers. On 14-5-1952, these four respondent-workmen submitted their explanation. On 17-5-1952, these respondents were dismissed under Clause 10 of the Standing Orders of the Company. Thereafter, on 21-5-1952, two of these four workmen namely the 5th and 6th respondents wrote to the Manager, regretting their action and offering sureties for their good behaviour. To quote their language, they said:"we will arrange for persons to stand surety on our behalf and we shall give in writing that if we do such a thing in the future or if it happens, then we ourselves will leave the garden as written in that paper. "
( 8 ) UNDER Section 7 (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal, "if the appeal involves any substantial question of law". The Appellate Tribunal in this case finds jurisdiction to entertain the appeal by coming to the conclusion that there is no legal evidence in support of the finding that the appellants were guilty of gross misconduct within the meaning of Clauses 10 (a) (7) and (8) of the Standing Orders, punishable with dismissal and that such evidence as there was at most proved simple misconduct within the
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
