Back
1996 Supreme(P&H) 1345
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and M.L.Singhal JJ.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd.
Versus
Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-labour Court-i
Civil Writ Petition No. 17237 of 1985,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
The Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the legality of the dismissal of the workman after recording the finding that the reference made by the Government is bad in law. The Industrial Tribunal cannot award compensation to the workman after holding that the decision of the employer to dismiss the workman is proper.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - REFERENCE OF DISPUTE - JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - COMPENSATION - SECTION 10, 11-A, 12 - Whether the Industrial Tribunal had the jurisdiction to go into the legality of the dismissal of the workman even after recording the finding that the reference made by the Government is bad in law ? Whether the Industrial Tribunal could award compensation to the workman even after holding that the decision of the employer to dismiss the workman is proper ?
Fact of the Case:
The workman was dismissed from service by the employer after a domestic enquiry. The workman challenged the dismissal by raising a dispute. The Government declined to make reference of the dispute, but later on reconsideration, referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the reference was bad in law as the Government had not given notice and opportunity of hearing to the employer before making the reference. However, the Tribunal went on to examine the fairness of the domestic enquiry and held that it was fair and proper. Despite this finding, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the workman.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to go into the legality of the dismissal of the workman after recording the finding that the reference made by the Government was bad in law. The Court also held that the Industrial Tribunal could not award compensation to the workman after holding that the decision of the employer to dismiss the workman was proper.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal had the jurisdiction to go into the legality of the dismissal of the workman even after recording the finding that the reference made by the Government is bad in law ? 2. Whether the Industrial Tribunal could award compensation to the workman even after holding that the decision of the employer to dismiss the workman is proper ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power conferred upon the Government to make reference of an industrial dispute is not confined to an industrial dispute which has already come into existence but the Government is also possessed with the power to make a reference, if any industrial dispute is apprehended. 2. The Government can exercise this power at any time. 3. While exercising the power to make or not to make a reference of an industrial dispute which exists or which is apprehended, the Government has to take into consideration the failure report of the conciliation officer submitted to it under Section 12(4) and it is the duty of the Government to record reasons and communicate the same to the parties for not making a reference. 4. These two Sections nowhere indicate that the Government is required to exercise power of making or not making a reference in a judicial or quasi judicial manner. 5. Similarly there is no requirement of hearing the parties before Taking a decision to refer or not to refer a dispute. 6. The Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the legality of the dismissal of the workman after recording the finding that the reference made by the Government is bad in law. 7. The Industrial Tribunal cannot award compensation to the workman after holding that the decision of the employer to dismiss the workman is proper.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The case was remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
G.S.Singhvi, J.
1. Three questions of law arise in these writ petitions filed by the employer as well as the employee against the award dated 8.11.1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Faridabad. First of these questions is whether it is imperative for the State Government to hear the employer before making reference of an industrial dispute after it had refused to make reference of the dispute on an earlier occasion ? Second question is whether the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court had the jurisdiction to go into the legality of the dismissal of the workman even after recording the finding that the reference made by the Government is bad in law ? Third question which calls for adjudication by this Court is whether the Industrial Tribunal could award compensation to the workman even after holding that the decision of the employer to dismiss the workman is proper ?
2. In order to decide "the aforementioned questions, it is necessary to give a factual background of the case. The workman, Kanhiya Singh, joined the employment of M/s Thomson Press (India) Limited Faridabad on 18.3.1968. On the date of removal from service i.e. 2.12.1985, he was working as Senior Electrician. A domestic enquiry was initiated against the workman on the basis of charge-sheet dated 3.7.1985 on the allegations that he had left the place of work at 2.45 p.m. or 27.6.1985 without permission and when he returned after 15 minutes, the workman used abusive language against an officer of the Company, Shri L.D. Kaushik, and tried to hit him with a hammer. The workman denied the allegations levelled against him. The employer held enquiry and dismissed the workman from service vide order dated 2.12.1985. Aggrieved by his dismissal, the workman submitted a demand notice for raising a dispute. The parties failed to arrive at a settlement and during conciliation proceedings and after considering the failure report the Government of Haryana declined to make reference. However, on a representation made by the workman, the Government re-considered the matter and vide its order dated 13.4.1987 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court I, Faridabad for adjudication.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Industrial Tribunal framed the following three issues :-
(i) Whether the reference is bad in law as alleged ?
(ii) Whether the enquiry is fair and proper ?
(iii) Whether the dismissal of the workman is justified and in order, if not, to what relief he is entitled ?
4. While dealing with the first issue the Tribunal took notice of the facts brought on record and held that the Government had acted illegally in making reference of the dispute without giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the employer, after it had declined to do so on an earlier occasion. The Tribunal recorded this conclusion on the basis of a judgment of this Court in The Tribune Trust v. State of Punjab, 1992(2) SLR 264. Thereafter, it examined the various objections raised by the workman to the fairness of the domestic enquiry and rejected all of them and recorded a conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the employer was fair and proper and the principles of natural justice were not violated. It also held that the Tribunal cannot sit in judgment over the decision of the management in view of the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal directed the employer to pay lump-sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- by observing that the workman had served the employer for more than 17 years.
5. Both the learned counsel criticised the impugned award, but for different reasons. Shri Lamba assailed the award by arguing that after having declared the reference to be bad in law, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award compensation to the workman, particularly, when it found the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper. Shri Lamba argued that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award compensation to the workman
