Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gurdev Singh, J.
General Electric Company Of India Ltd
Versus
Kedia B K
Decided On : APRIL 2, 1965
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - REINSTATEMENT - ENQUIRY OFFICER'S FINDINGS - INTERFERENCE BY INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CANNOT ACT AS COURT OF APPEAL - INTERFERENCE JUSTIFIED ONLY IN CASES OF MALA FIDE, VICTIMIZATION, UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE, BASIC ERROR OR VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE - ENQUIRY HELD FAIR AND IN CONSONANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ERRED IN REOPENING FINDINGS - AWARD QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company discharged its stenographer, B. K. Kedia, for misbehavior and insubordination. The industrial tribunal, on a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, set aside the discharge order and directed reinstatement with back wages. The company challenged the award on the ground that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer and to reappraise evidence in the absence of any finding of mala fide, victimization, or unfair labor practice.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the industrial tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer and to reappraise evidence in the absence of any finding of mala fide, victimization, or unfair labor practice. The court found that the enquiry conducted against Kedia was fair and in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The court held that the industrial tribunal erred in reopening the findings of the enquiry officer and in directing reinstatement of the workman.
Issues: 1. Whether the industrial tribunal had jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer and to reappraise evidence in the absence of any finding of mala fide, victimization, or unfair labor practice. 2. Whether the enquiry conducted against Kedia was fair and in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the industrial tribunal does not act as a Court of appeal and would not substitute its own judgment for the findings of fact recorded by the enquiry officer. It will, however, interfere where there is want of good faith, when it finds that it is a case of victimization or unfair labor practice, when the enquiry officer had committed a basic error or acted in violation of the principles of natural justice, and when on material the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are completely baseless or perverse.
Final Decision: The court quashed the award of the industrial tribunal and directed that the parties bear their own costs.
Gurdev Singh, J.
1. In title petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, General Electric Company of India, Ltd. , New Delhi, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the award of the industrial tribunal, Delhi, dated 18 Jane 1964, under which the petitioner-company is required to reinstate Its discharged stenographer, B. K. Kedia (respondent 1) with half back-wages for the period of his unemployment.
2. The dispute relating to these proceedings has arisen in the following manner.
3. On 19 June 1962, while the branch manager of the petitioner-company was away on leave, Sri G. S. Chadha, one of its senior officers, called the respondent, B. K. Kedia, a stenographer employed in that office, for taking down certain urgent letters. According to the petitioners case, Kedia asked him to first obtain the permission of Sri. S. N. Kohli, another senior officer of the company, but when Sri G. S. Chadha, explained to him that no such permission was necessary and some urgent letters had to be typed, he took dictation of a letter relating to the despatch of railway receipt No.61687 of 16 June 1962. Daspits the fact that Kedia was informed of the urgency of the matter, he however, did not type out the letter, and sometime later when Sri Chadha went to his desk to enquire if the letter was ready, Kedia, behaving towards him in an insubordinate manner, very rudely told him that he was not bothered about the typing of the letter. Shortly afterwards, B. K. Kedia left the office without typing the letter or returning the relevant railway receipt to Sri G. S. Chadha.
4. On the following day, when B. K. Kedia did not turn up, Sri G. S. Chadha went to his desk, and on the search of his holder recovered the railway receipt in question. Thereupon, he dictated the latter to another stenographer, Sri Baldev Raj.
5. On 23 June 1962, when B. K. Kedia, respondent, returned to duty, Sri G. S. Chadha asked him why he had not typed out the letter, and why he had left the office without making over to him the railway receipt. Kedia, respondents, thereupon, got into rage and addressing Sri Chandha shouted" Jo karna hai kar lo, tum mera kiya bigar sakte ho" (in Hindi ).
6. On 27 June 1962, when the branch manager, Sri I. L. Das, returned from leaves, Sri G. S. Chandha complained to him about the respondent B. K. Kedias misbehaviour. The same day, the branch manager called upon the respondent, Kedias, to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his rude behaviour towards Sri G. S. Chadha and his refusal to carry out his instructions relating to typing out or a letter as complained by Sri Chadha Replying to this notice, on the following day, Kadia merely wrote to the branch manager that he had never refused to carry out the instructions of Sri G. S. Chadha nor had ever been rude to him. He, however, added that if there was any complaint from Sri G. S. Chadha, a copy of the same be supplied to him for suitable reply as the allegations conveyed to him ware vague. In response to this request, on 30 June 1962, a detailed chargesheet was served upon the respondent, Kedia, under the signatures of Sri I. L. Das, director and branch manager of the company. Even then, Kedia did not submit his detailed explanation, and on 2 July 1962, merely wrote back: The allegations and the story narrated in your letter under reference were not in existence in your memo, dated 27 June 1962. As such, the allegations and the story in your memo under reply are nothing but mere afterthoughts.
7. In this connexion, he pointed out that his request for a copy of the complaint made by Sri G. S. Chadha had not been heeded to. The very next day (3 July 1962), the branch manager wrote back to the respondent, Kedia, that the details of the allegations had been communicated to him in the charge-sheet, dated 30 June 1962. and though he had failed to reply to them. he was being given one more opportunity to render his explanation. Kedia again replied th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
