Back
High Court Of Calcutta
M.M. Dutt, R.K. Sharma, JJ.
Graphite India Limited : Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal : Respondent
Decided On : Sep 06,1979
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 11A - NATURAL JUSTICE - ENQUIRY OFFICER EXAMINING WITNESS SUO MOTO WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO RE-APPRECIATE EVIDENCE AND EXAMINE CORRECTNESS OF FINDING ARRIVED AT THE ENQUIRY - TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE EXCLUDED EVIDENCE OF WITNESS EXAMINED SUO MOTO AND CONSIDERED OTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO COME TO A FINDING AS TO GUILT OR OTHERWISE OF WORKMAN.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was dismissed from service for refusing to accept a letter of warning and for refusing to sample an Anode with only one helper. The Enquiry Officer examined a witness suo moto without giving the respondent an opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal held that this was a violation of the principles of natural justice and reinstated the respondent with back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Enquiry Officer's examination of a witness suo moto without giving the respondent an opportunity to cross-examine him was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and examine the correctness of the finding arrived at the enquiry. However, the Court found that the Tribunal had not properly discharged its duty under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it had not excluded the evidence of the witness examined suo moto and considered the other evidence on record to come to a finding as to the guilt or otherwise of the respondent.
Issues: 1. Whether the Enquiry Officer's examination of a witness suo moto without giving the respondent an opportunity to cross-examine him was a violation of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and examine the correctness of the finding arrived at the enquiry? 3. Whether the Tribunal had properly discharged its duty under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Enquiry Officer's examination of a witness suo moto without giving the respondent an opportunity to cross-examine him was a violation of the principles of natural justice, as it denied the respondent a fair opportunity to defend himself against the charges against him. 2. The Court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and examine the correctness of the finding arrived at the enquiry under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The Court held that the Tribunal had not properly discharged its duty under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it had not excluded the evidence of the witness examined suo moto and considered the other evidence on record to come to a finding as to the guilt or otherwise of the respondent.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the judgment of the learned Judge and the award of the tribunal and sent the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to come to a finding as to the guilt or otherwise of the respondent in respect of both the charges upon considering the materials on record, excluding, however, the evidence of the witness examined suo moto. If the Tribunal came to the finding that the guilt of the respondent was proved, it was to consider whether it would award a lesser punishment in lieu of dismissal. If the Tribunal came to the finding that the guilt of the respondent had not been proved, it was to reinstate the respondent with effect from the date of his dismissal with all back wages.
1. THIS appeal is at the instance of Graphite India Ltd. and it is directed against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court whereby he discharged the Rule Nisi obtained by the appellant company challenging the propriety of the award of the 9th Industrial Tribunal, Durgapur. By the said award, the learned Tribunal reinstated the respondent no. 4 Ratan Chandra Das Gupta in his post with effect from the date of his dismissal with all back wages.
2. THE respondent no. 4 was at all material time an Inspector in the Production Control Department of the appellant company. On July 3, 1971 a charge-sheet was served upon him by the management inter alia to the following effect:
(1) On 2.7.71 he had been asked by the Supervisor of the department to sample 102x132x861 mm. size Anode, 'but instead of acting according to the instructions of the supervisor he straightway refused to carry out according to the instructions in spite of several verbal and written warnings,
(2) On 26.6.71 while he was handed over a letter by Sri J. K. Agarwal he, after going through the contents of the letter straightway refused to accept the same. Both these acts constituted major misconduct under the Model standing Orders.
The respondent no. 4 was suspended pending further enquiry into the charges leveled against him. One Sri bagla Prasanna Bhattaa, a Labour Officer of the appellant company was appointed the Enquiry Officer. As to the charge no. 1 the defense of the respondent no. 4 was inter alia that the sampling job of the Anode in question could be done only with two helpers or by two Inspectors and one helper. As two helpers were not" provided to him he could not do the job. Regarding the charge no. 2, it was alleged by him that he did not refuse to accept the letter but said to Sri J. K. Agarwal that he would accept the same after having a talk with the Manager. The case of the appellant company was that the sampling job of the type of the Anode mentioned in charge no. 1 could be done with only one helper or by two Inspectors. It was also alleged that the respondent no. 4 refused to accept the letter of warning mentioned in charge no. 2. So far as charge no. 1 was concerned, evidence was adduced on both sides to prove their respective cases. The appellant company examined four witnesses while she respondent no. 4 examined six witnesses. On the question, whether the sampling job as referred to in charge no. 1 required two helpers or not, another witness, namely, A. K. Das Gupta was examined by the Enquiry Officer out. if his own. The said A. K. Das Gupta was alleged to have done the sampling job of the Anode in question with only one helper. It appears that the respondent no. 4 was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the said A. K. Das Gupta. The Enquiry Officer placed reliance on the evidence of the said A. K. Das Gupta and came to the finding that the job could be done by only one Helper and as the respondent no. 4 ad refused to do the work with one helper, he was found guilty of the charge. The Enquiry Officer also found the respondent no. 4 guilty of the charge no. 2. The Resident Director of the appellant company concurred with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and found the respondent no. 4 guilty of the charges and by his order dated September 21, 1971 dismissed him from the service of the appellant company with immediate effect.
3. THEREAFTER, the appellant company filed an application under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the 9th Industrial Tribunal for the approval of the action in dismissing the respondent no. 4. The Tribunal by its order dated November 3, 1971 held that proper and legal enquiry was held against the respondent no. 4 was required under the law, and that the appellant company was able to make out a prima facie case against the respondent no. 4 and all principles of natural justice were also observed. Accordingly, the Tribunal by its said order approved of the action taken by the app
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
