The Appellate Authority did not have the power to order a de-novo enquiry on the same charges for which the workman was found not guilty.

Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in I.D.No.37 of 1990, the petitioner-Management is before this Court.

2. The learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal directed for reinstatement and payment of back wages to the workman, who was petitioner before the Tribunal.

3. The legality and correctness of the said award is questioned here.

4. In nutshell the facts are that the workman was an employee of the petitioner and on 13.12.1974. He was found leaving the work place without obtaining permission and therefore, it is treated as absence from the place of work and he was caught by the security official when the workman was trying to escape through the fencing in an unauthorised and objectionable manner and he has given false information without revealing his correct name and place of work, therefore, a charge memo was issued. The appointing authority has initiated disciplinary proceedings and appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer examined the relevant witnesses marked the connected documents and held that the charges are not proved and the workman was found not guilty. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and thereby, the workman was exonerated from the charges.

5. While so, the Appellate Authority did not accept the enquiry report and orders of the Disciplinary Authority and directed for de-novo enquiry and in the de-novo enquiry, the workman was found to be guilty. Therefore, the workman has challenged the order of the Original authority before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has given a finding in favour of the workman.

6. Heard Shri. N. Nithianandam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Management and Mrs.Rita Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the workman, respondent herein.

7. The point for determination is whether there is any valid grounds for interference with the award of the Tribunal.

Point:

The role of this Court is limited. Until and unless, it is pointed out that the award is perverse and erroneous, then alone the High Court will have to interfere with the award of the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal.

8. Shri. N. Nithianandam, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Standing Order No.11 of the petitioner reads as follows:

"Inherent Powers of the higher authorities:

The appellate authority or any authority superior to it may on its own motion or otherwise initiate disciplinary action against any workman and award any of the prescribed punishments".

9. While pressing this aspects, the learned counsel has stated that the appellate authority is given sweeping powers to initiate disciplinary action either on its own motion or otherwise and the meaning of word 'otherwise' means on receiving the enquiry report and on receiving the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the Appellate Authority is given power to order for de-novo enquiry.

10. The said preposition has been disagreed by the Tribunal in paragraph No.9 of the award. The Tribunal has given a specific finding that there is no provision either in the Standing Order of the Corporation or any rule enabling the Disciplinary Authority to initiate de-novo enquiry on the same charges after the disciplinary proceedings have come to closure, on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Tribunal also observed that the Management is unable to show any Standing Order that the Appellate Authority has power to order for de-novo enquiry on the very same charges for which, the workman was found not guilty.

11. The Tribunal has observed that the proceedings of the Appellate Authority ordering for de-novo enquiry on the same charges for the second time is illegal and the punishment imposed thereon, on the basis of the report of the de-novo enquiry is not valid.

12. I do not find any illegality or abnormality in the findings of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has relied on following judgments:

1. A. Palani Vs. Union of India and Others (1994 I LLN 435)

2. Dwarkachand Vs. State