Back
2013 Supreme(Ori) 505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sanju Panda, J.
M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. - APPELLANT
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 1001 and 1002 of 2008
Decided On : 05-07-2013
D.P. Nanda, M.K. Pati, R.K. Kanungo and S. Rath, for the Appellant; P.C. Chinchani and P.C. Patra, for the Respondent
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under 33(2)(b) is limited to considering whether a prima facie case for according approval is made out by the employer.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Domestic Enquiry - 33(2)(b)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in an application u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, regarding misconduct by workmen resulting in removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found that the management failed to establish the charges against the workmen and disapproved the penalty imposed. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
Issues: Fairness of domestic enquiry, jurisdiction of the Tribunal, assessment of evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's jurisdiction under 33(2)(b) is limited to considering whether a prima facie case for according approval is made out by the employer. The Tribunal cannot assume powers of an Appellate Court and assess the materials on record beyond its jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.
JUDGMENT :
Sanju Panda, J. - In W.P. (C) No. 1001 of 2008, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. Misc. Case No. 37 of 2001 in an application u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter in short as "the Act") filed by it. Similarly, in W.P. (C) No. 1002 of 2008, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.11.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. Misc. Case No. 40 of 2001 in an application u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter in short as "the Act") filed by it. Since common questions of law are involved in both the writ petitions, the same are heard together and the following common judgment is passed thereon.
2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner-management filed the aforesaid Misc. Cases after completion of the inquiry and the report submitted by the inquiring officer with a finding that the delinquents were guilty. Copies of the enquiry report were supplied to the delinquents and penalty of removal from service was imposed on them. Accordingly, the same was referred to the Tribunal for approval under the above provision.
3. The case of the petitioner-management is that the workmen while working as Yard Master and Shunting Porter respectively in the Yard Switching Section of the management committed misconduct by dishonestly attempting to cause willful loss to the company's property by taking the iron towards the dumping yard. On 9.2.2000, the workmen were in 'C' shift duty. On that day, Hot metal Ladle No. 20 and Slag Pot Car No. D/50 were taken to PCM area of Blast Furnace by Loco Nos. 411 and 603 on the instruction of the workmen. Slag Pot Car No. D/50 was intentionally positioned at mixer line (track) where there was no facility for dislodging. After the ladle No. 20 was lip poured into the said slag pot with the hot metal along with the slag at PCM it was put by the workmen along with Sri B. Parida, Shunting Porter of Zone-III of T & RM Department in the track leading to Blast Furnace slag dumping yard and it was found that 14 tons of hot metal worth Rs. 1,05,000/- were taken in it. On such fact, the authority issued a charge sheet and the workmen were called upon to submit their respective explanations. However, as the explanations of the workmen were found unsatisfactory, proceedings were started against them.
4. The case of the workmen is that the enquiry was not fairly conducted and they were not aware about the contents of Slag Pot No. D/50 nor they poured the hot iron metal in the slag pot. The pot was removed as per the instruction of the authority. It is further contended by the workmen that neither they were paid any subsistence allowance nor was the enquiry conducted in a fair manner. Accordingly, they prayed for refusal of permission as sought for by the management.
5. The Tribunal while considering the respective pleas of the parties, examined the matter as to whether the domestic enquiry has been conducted fairly in accordance with the relevant rules following the principles of natural justice/equity and whether the materials available on record prima facie established the charges framed against the workmen. It appears from the impugned order that the Tribunal has discussed in details the materials available on record and came to a conclusion that the management failed to establish the charge, and, therefore, there was no need to discuss the evidence led by the workmen. On that finding the penalty imposed by the management was disapproved. In support of its contention, learned Counsel for the management has cited the decisions reported in the cases of The Lord Krishna Textile Mills Vs. Its Workmen, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Another. Niranjan Das Vs. Asst. General Manager, Traffic and Raw Material Department, Rourkela Steel Plant, and Cholan Roadways Limited Vs. G. Thirugnanasam
