Back
1958 Supreme(MP) 230
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
M. Hidayatullah, C. J. and P. K. Tare, J.
BURHANPUR TAPTI MILLS LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 82 Of 1958
Decided On : 09/24/1958
K.K.DUBEY, R.N.CHOUDHARI, R.S.DABIR, S.B.SEN
The scope of the enquiry under Section 16 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 is limited to determining whether the dismissal, discharge, removal or suspension was in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Standing Orders made or sanctioned under the Act or was for a fault or misconduct committed by the employee more than 6 months prior to the date of such dismissal, discharge, removal or suspension.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - STANDING ORDERS - ENQUIRY BY MANAGER - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY BY TRIBUNALS UNDER SECTION 16 OF THE C. P. AND BERAR INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT, 1947 - C. P. AND BERAR INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES SETTLEMENT ACT, 1947, SECTIONS 16, 42 - C. P. AND BERAR INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES SETTLEMENT RULES, 1949, RULE 18 - STANDING ORDERS, CLAUSES 25, 26, 29.
Fact of the Case:
An employee was dismissed for instigating an illegal strike. He challenged the dismissal before the Labour Commissioner under Section 16 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. The Labour Commissioner and the State Industrial Court found that the dismissal was wrongful and ordered the employee's reinstatement. The employer challenged the orders of the Tribunals by filing a writ petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunals acted under a misapprehension about the charge-sheet served on the employee and the scope of the enquiry to be held under Section 16 (3) of the Act. The Court found that the findings given by the manager under Clause 29 of the Standing Orders are subject to the appellate findings of the Agents or Proprietors and are not open to challenge in the enquiry before the Labour Commissioner, unless there has been a contravention of the Act or the Standing Orders. The Court also held that the Tribunals had no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the findings of the enquiry held by the management as an appellate authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunals acted under a misapprehension about the charge-sheet served on the employee and the scope of the enquiry to be held under Section 16 (3) of the Act? 2. Whether the findings given by the manager under Clause 29 of the Standing Orders are open to challenge in the enquiry before the Labour Commissioner? 3. Whether the Tribunals had jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the findings of the enquiry held by the management as an appellate authority?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tribunals acted under a misapprehension about the charge-sheet served on the employee and the scope of the enquiry to be held under Section 16 (3) of the Act. 2. The findings given by the manager under Clause 29 of the Standing Orders are subject to the appellate findings of the Agents or Proprietors and are not open to challenge in the enquiry before the Labour Commissioner, unless there has been a contravention of the Act or the Standing Orders. 3. The Tribunals had no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the findings of the enquiry held by the management as an appellate authority.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the orders of the Tribunals and directed that the parties shall bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the employer for quashing the order dated 8-4-1957 passed by the Labour commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Indore in case No. 8 of 1957 and confirmed by shri K. B. Kher, Presiding Officer of the State Industrial Court on 1-4-1958 in revision application No. 19 of 1957.
( 2 ) THE third non-applicant, who was a jobber, in the applicant mills and is a worker of the Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Burhanpur, was served with a charge sheet dated 21-9-1956 (annexure A ). The said charge sheet stated that on 21-9-1956 at about 7-30 in the morning when the workers in the weaving department were on duty, the said Sulemankhan (present respondent 3) instigated the workers to stop work, thereby causing an illegal strike in the mills.
( 3 ) THE proceedings about the enquiry held by the manager on the said charge have not been filed in the present case, but during the course of the arguments, the detailed findings, as also the evidence recorded were made available for our perusal. If necessary the said proceedings relating to the enquiry shall be referred to later on.
( 4 ) THE only order filed in this Court along with the writ petition was of 19-12-1956 (annexure B), which stated that Sulemankhan had been summarily dismissed without notice and without compensation in lieu of notice for misconduct under standing Order No. 25 (b) of the Standing Orders framed by the mill as per charge-sheet No. 289.
( 5 ) SULEMANKHAN, filed an application dated 17-1-1957 (annexure C), before the labour Commissioner, under Section 16 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes settlement Act, 1947, challenging the order of dismissal passed against him. It would be necessary to reproduce the relevant allegations made by him in the said application. They are as follows :
"para 3. That the allegations are entirely baseless and no proper enquiry was made to bring home the charge against the applicant. Para. 4. That the applicant was not given proper notice nor was he given the opportunity to explain the charge and to adduce evidence in favour of himself. Para 5. That in the absence of proper enquiry, the dismissal is arbitrary and illegal. "
( 6 ) IN reply, the employer filed a written statement (annexure D), denying that no proper enquiry was made. It was alleged that the employee was given full opportunity to lead evidence and also to cross-examine the witnesses examined in the enquiry. It was asserted that the employee examined 3 witnesses in support of his case. On 28-11-1956, the employee had specifically given in writing that he did not want to examine any further witnesses. It was also averred that a proper charge-sheet was drawn up and it was duly served on the employee.
( 7 ) IT is also necessary to mention the finding arrived at by the said Tribunals. The labour Commissioner was of the view that the conclusion of the manager about the proof of the charge against the employee was not justified by the evidence on record and that the order of dismissal was, therefore, bad in law and mala fide. The Labour Commissioner was also of the opinion that the employee was being victimised in contravention of Section 42 (1) (g) of the C. P. and Berar Industrial disputes Settlement Act, 1947. Further the Labour Commissioner was of the view that the manager, while inflicting the punishment of dismissal had not complied with Sub-clause (4) of the clause 26 of the Standing Orders, inasmuch as the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record and any extenuating or aggravating circumstances had not been taken into consideration by the mills. The Labour Commissioner, therefore, ordered the re-instatement of Sulemankhan by directing full wages to be paid for the period from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement.
( 8 ) IT must first be stated that the Labour Commissioner was under a misapprehension regarding the charge-sheet served on the employee. The State industrial Co
