1968 Supreme(P&H) 24

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Tek Chand, J.
Goodyear India Ltd
Versus
Industrial Tribunal
Decided On : MARCH 5, 1968

The jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act is limited to considering whether a prima facie case has been made out by the employer for the dismissal of the employee in question and whether the proposed dismissal amounts to victimization or an unfair labour practice. The tribunal cannot consider whether the order proposed to be passed by the employer is proper or adequate or whether it errs on the side of excessive severity.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 33(3) - DISMISSAL OF PROTECTED WORKMAN - PERMISSION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - PROCEDURE FOR ENQUIRY - STANDING ORDERS - JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL.

Fact of the Case:

The management of Goodyear (India), Ltd. declared a 4% bonus for the year 1966 under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Respondent 2, Khushinder Singh, president of the Goodyear Employees Union and a protected workman, called a meeting of the workers on 31 March 1967 and 1 April 1967, instigating them to slow down their production as a protest against the bonus declaration. The management issued a letter of charge to Khushinder Singh on 16 April 1967, alleging wilful misconduct and suspending him with immediate effect pending disposal of the matter. Khushinder Singh sent his reply on 9 April 1967, denying the charges and requesting withdrawal of the suspension order. The management informed him on 10 April 1967 that his explanation was unsatisfactory and that an enquiry would be held on 12 April 1967 at 2 p.m. An attempt was made to deliver the notice of enquiry at Khushinder Singh's residence, but he was not present. The management then learnt that he had come to the factory main gate, where he was given the letter of enquiry, which he refused to accept. On 11 April 1967, the management verbally informed Khushinder Singh about the enquiry proceedings to be held on 12 April 1967 at 2 p.m. The enquiry was held ex parte on 12 April 1967 as Khushinder Singh did not appear. The inquiry officer found him guilty of instigating the workers to drop their normal production and recommended his discharge. The management applied to the industrial tribunal for permission to discharge Khushinder Singh under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Finding of the Court:

The industrial tribunal rejected the management's application, holding that a proper notice of enquiry was not served on Khushinder Singh and that the enquiry was held in indecent haste and flouted the rules of natural justice. The tribunal observed that it was the duty of the inquiry officer to serve notice on the employee proceeded against and that it was not the duty of the management to fix the date and time of the enquiry or to issue notices to the employee. The tribunal also criticized the management for not following the procedure of issuing a notice to Khushinder Singh by post and preferably by registered post acknowledgement due.

Issues: 1. Whether the industrial tribunal erred in holding that the management did not follow the proper procedure for serving notice of enquiry on Khushinder Singh? 2. Whether the industrial tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing additional procedural safeguards not covered by the standing orders?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The industrial tribunal erred in holding that the management did not follow the proper procedure for serving notice of enquiry on Khushinder Singh. The standing orders of the company, which were binding on both the management and the workmen, provided that the management was responsible for serving notice and informing the employee verbally in the presence of a witness the date and time at which the enquiry into his alleged misconduct would be held. The standing orders did not require the inquiry officer to initiate the preliminary proceedings regarding giving of notice and informing the employee concerned of the date and time when the matter would be taken up and of the allegations against him. 2. The industrial tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing additional procedural safeguards not covered by the standing orders. The tribunal's view that the inquiry officer assumes the function of a judge and it is for him to fix a date and time for the enquiry and to inform both parties about the same, is erroneous. The duty is cast upon the management under the standing orders and the tribunal has to see whether the procedure laid down in the standing orders has been observed or not.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned order of the industrial tribunal quashing the permission under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act was quashed, and the case was remanded to the industrial tribunal for redetermining the question in accordance with law and the observations made by the court.