Back
2007 Supreme(Ori) 412
2007 (II) OLR — 245
A. S. NAIDU, J.
M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd....Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and another...Opp. Parties
O.J.C.No.7974 of 1993
Decided on 18th June, 2007.
For Petitioner:M/s. Bijan Roy and Associates
For Opp.Party No.2:M/s. Satyabadi Mishra and Associ¬ates
Headnote:1. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - Sec. 33(2)(b) - Workman committed theft - On domestic enquiry workman found guilty of the charge and punishment of dismissal from service - Petition seek¬ing approval - Tribunal came to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted properly but held that the punishment of dismissal was quite disproportionate - Approval to the punishment imposed was rejected - Writ - Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction and authority to refuse to accord approval to the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority ? - The Indus¬trial Tribunal in its judgment has not come to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry suffered from any defect or infirmity or that it was perverse - Tribunal has assessed the evidence and found that the order holding the workman guilty was justified - The Tribunal has not come to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal imposed was excessive or too severe or intended to victimize the employee - In absence of such conclusions the Tribunal had no option but to grant approval to the punishment imposed inasmuch as generally speaking the award of punishment for misconduct is a matter for the management to decide and the Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of the punishment or whether it is excessive or too severe unless it amounts to unfair labour practice or meant to victimize the workman - Held, in the instant case Industrial Tribunal not justified in refusing approval - Order not sustainable. (Para - 11)
2. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - Sec. 33(2)(b) - Domestic enquiry - Industrial dispute - Appeal - On scrutiny if the Industrial Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the domestic enquiry was defective for any reason, it has the jurisdiction to consider the evidence adduced in enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
While exercising power under Section 33(2)(b) of the Indus¬trial Dispute Act the Tribunal is required to examine as to whether the domestic enquiry had been conducted fairly, without any bias and following the principles of natural justice and equity and as to whether the materials available in record prima facie establish the charges framed against the delinquent. On such scrutiny if the Industrial Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was no unfair labour practice or victimization it has to grant approval to the punishment imposed. Section 33(2) of the Industrial Act provides for a remedy to assail the punishment and the same is beyond the scope of the enquiry under Section 33(2) (b) of the Act. (Para - 10)
JUDGMENT
A. S. NAIDU, J. — Invoking jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dtd.29th July, 1993 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Industrial Dispute Misc. Case No.1/1989.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts which are necessary for appreciating the dispute are that :
Opposite Party No.2 was a helper in the Loco Maintenance Section, Traffic and Raw-material Department of Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela. It is alleged that on 9th August, 1988 he com¬mitted theft of two pieces of traction motor brass holders and one hammer from the company’s premises. He was caught red-handed by the Security staff present near the Gate and the stolen arti¬cles were recovered from his possession. Theft of Company’s property being a misconduct, he was issued with a charge sheet and was called upon to submit his show cause reply, if any. He submitted his show cause reply and the same being found unsatis¬factory, a domestic enquiry was directed to be initiated. The Enquiry Committee enquired into the allegations, gave reasonable opportunity to the workman of being heard, granted him time on various dates and after completion of enquiry submitted its report finding the workman guilty of the charge. The Disciplinary Authority thereupon made thorough scrutiny of the materials collected during enquiry and after confirming the finding record¬ed by the enquiry committee imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The Management thereafter remitted one month’s wages to the workman and simultaneously filed a petition under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinaf¬ter called the “Act”) seeking necessary approval as the workman-opposite party was a party to an earlier dispute pending adjudi¬cation before the Tribunal.
3. After receiving notice opposite party No.2-workman appeared and pleaded his innocence and took the stand that the enquiry was conducted without giving sufficient opportunity to him and the time petitions filed by him were rejected time and again without sufficient reasons. The workman challenged the fairness of the domestic enquiry on the grounds that (a) the names of the witnesses examined were not furnished, (b) the evidence adduced had not been properly appreciated, (c) the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him before the final order was passed and (d) the punishment imposed on him was shock¬ingly extreme disproportionate to the charges.
4. The Industrial Tribunal heard both the parties at length, scrutinized the enquiry report and other documents and the records of the enquiry committee. It arrived at a conclusion that the enquiry committee was quite liberal in granting adjourn¬ment to the opposite party-workman, but despite that did not become diligent. It held that sufficient opportunity had been afforded to the workman-opposite party. It was further held that the enquiry proceeded in accordance with law and following the principles of natural justice and equity and the evidence which were available to establish the allegations levelled were cor¬rectly appreciated. Thus, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted properly, but then held that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the workman was quite dispro¬portionate which led to an inference that the management’s action was mala fide. On the basis of such conclusion the prayer to accord approval to the punishment imposed was rejected and the Misc. Case was dismissed.
5. After receiving notice a counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party No.2 reiterating the stand taken before the Tribunal and alleging that the Management took a vindictive attitude and consequently imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal though the offence alleged to have been committed was a minor one.
A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner-Management repudiating the averments made in the counter affida¬vit. In
