JUDGMENT : O. P. 827/64 is an application for a writ of certiorari to quash an award passed by the Labour Court, Quilon. The question referred for adjudication was "dismissal of Syrank O.M. Thommy". Two charges were framed against O.M. Thommy by the management. The first charge was :

''That you were grossly negligent and care less in the performance of your duties in that on the night of 22nd May 1962 at about 24-00 hours, while you were proceeding in tug Surya as its syrang with 6 crafts in two, at a place called Pallipuram due to your carelessness and negligence the tug crafts in two dashes against 22 fishing stakes causing extensive damage in the stakes and the nets attached to them."

It was said in Ext. E-1 charge that the company had to pay Rs. 500 to settle the claim of fisherman and that Thommy is liable to pay the same to the company. Thommy submitted a reply to the management (Ext. M-1). On 6-8-1962, the management issued another show cause notice slating that Thommy was guilty of indiscipliuary behaviour in making imputations against the honesty of the officers of the company in Ext. M-1. On 8-8-1962 Thommy submitted his explanation to the second charge by denying it. Two enquiries were conducted, and it was found that Thommv was guilty of both charges and the enquiry office is recommended that the charges proved against Thommy are serious and that each of them by itself was grave enough to merit a dismissal and that Thommy should be dismissed from service. This finding was accepted mid Thommy was dismissed. It was this action of the management that was the subject-matter of the reference in the Labour Court.

2. The Labour Court found that the person who conducted the enquiry on the first charge was disqualified from conducting the enquiry as he was one of the persons against whom Thommy had made the allegations in Ext. M-1 in the reply to the first charge. As regards the second charge, the Labour Court found that there was no evidence to show that the allegation made by Thommy in the reply to the first charge was intended to refer to the officers of the company and therefore Thommy was not guilty of any indisciplinary conduct in sending the reply to the first charge. The Labour Court therefore set aside the order of the management dismissing Thommy and in lieu of reinstatement directed the management. In pay a compensation of Rs. 3,500 to him as well as the back wages. The management has filed O. P. 827 of 1964 to quash the award, in so far as it has interfered with its order dismissing Thommy. Thommy has filed O. P. 361/1964 questioning the correctness of the award in so far as the Labour Court has refused his prayer for reinstatement.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in O. P. 827/1964 argued that there was no allegation in the written statement of Thommy More the Labour Court that the Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry into the first charge on us biased against him and that in the absence of a definite allegation to that effect it was not possible for the management to have met the case of bias on the part of the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Balagangadhara Menon, appearing for the Labour Court, submitted that where the Labour Court found that the proceedings of the management were vitiated on the ground that they were conducted against the principles of natural justice, it was the duty of that Court to have set aside the proceedings notwithstanding the fact that there was no specific plea of bias in the written statement of the Union. It was submitted by him that the enquiry conducted by the management was against the principles of natural justice as there was the likelihood of bias in the person who conducted the enquiry.

4. The Officer of the company who con ducted the enquiry could not have conducted it without the likelihood of bias as he was one of the persons against whom it was thought that Thommy had made the allegations whether or not the allegations in Ext. M-1 referred to the officer who conducted the fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document