The Labour Court cannot reassess evidence or act as an appellate authority over a domestic inquiry unless there is a demonstration of mala fides or procedural unfairness.

1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The main prayer is that the award, dated 16-3-1959 be quashed and for consequential reliefs.

2. The petitioner is a company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of cotton goods.

3. For an incident which happened in the evening of 4th July 1958 Rohini Kumar, the first respondent, who was at that time working as gate clerk in the petitioner company, was charge - sheeted for misconduct. Under Standing O.23(c) which applied to the clerks employed by the petitioner company, taking or giving bribe or any illegal gratification was a misconduct for which the workmen could be dismissed. One of the charges related to the taking of bribe. The charge - sheet was served on Sri Rohini Kumar on 10th July 1958. On 14th July 1958, Sri Rohini Kumar submitted his explanation denying the allegation. The explanation was considered unsatisfactory and an enquiry was directed to be instituted.
The enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Labour Officer of the petitioner company. He recorded evidence of several witnesses and gave an opportunity to Sri Rohini Kumar to cross - examine these witnesses as also to adduce his own evidence. Sri Rohini Kumar cross - examined some of the witnesses but did not cross - examine the others. Sri Rohini Kumar examined himself in his defence but produced no other witness. The Inquiring Officer found that Sri Rohini Kumar was guilty of the various acts of misconduct for which he was charged. On 25th July 1958, the Mill Manager after having perused the enquiry report and evidence led in the case, passed an order dismissing Sri Rohini Kumar with effect from that date.

4. An industrial dispute with respect to the dismissal of Sri Rohini Kumar was raised and referred to the Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur. No amicable settlement was arrived at. Ultimately, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Kanpur. For adjudication.

5. The Labour Court overruled the employers objection relating to the validity of the reference. It, thereafter, reviewed the evidence led by the parties before the Inquiring Officer, and came to the conclusion that the dismissal of Sri Rohini Kumar was wrongful and unjustified. It directed that he be reinstated with continuity of service and it further directed that Sri Rohini Kumar be given compensation at the rate of one fourth of his average wages from 16th July 1958 to the date of his reinstatement.

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner company hits come to this Court. Of the many points raised in the petition, one is that the State Government has acted in excess of the provisions of S. 11 - A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in delegating the function of making reference under S. 4 - K of the Act to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. This point has been answered in the negative by several benches of this Court and I have also not been impressed by it. I, therefore, overruled this objection.

7. The next point urged is that Labour Court has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it in setting aside the finding of the Inquiring Officer and directing that the workman be reinstated. Sri T.N. Sapru, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to sit as a Court of Appeal over the report of the Inquiring Officer and to substitute its own judgment of the evidence. It has now been settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court that the Labour Court can interfere with an order of dismissal if it found that the order of dismissal was actuated by any mala fides or by victimisation or was an act of unfair labour practice. See Caltex