POWARI TEA ESTATE Vs. BARKATAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The industrial dispute between the appellant, the management of Powai Tea Estate, and the respondents, its workmen, which has given rise to this appeal by special leave, centered round the question as to whether the appellant was justified in terminating the services of three of its employees D. Barthakur, D. Bora, and L.K. Gohain. The respondents contended that the termination of the services of the said three employees was unjustified, and that they were entitled to reinstatement with back wages. The appellant, on the other hand, urged that the dismissals in question were fully justified, and that the employees were not entitled to any relief. This dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Gauhati, by the Assam Government, and the Labour Court has held that the dismissal of D. Barthakur and D. Bora was justified, with the result that the said two employees were entitled to no relief in the present proceedings. In regard to Gohain, however, it came to the conclusion that his dismissal was not justified, and so, the appellant was ordered to reinstate him with continuity of service. Against this order, the appellant moved the High Court of Assam under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and urged that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court was illegal and should be set aside. The High Court rejected the appellant's contention and dismissed the writ petition filed by it. The appellant then moved the High Court for a certificate to appeal to this Court, but the said application was rejected. Thereafter, the appellant applied for, and obtained special leave from this Court. That is how the appeal has come to this Court.

(2.) The main point which Mr Setalvad for the appellant has urged before us, is that in dealing with the case of Gohain, the Labour Court has purported to exercise appellate jurisdiction in relation to the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer who held a domestic enquiry against Gohain. It appears that on the 12th June, 1957, Mr Allison. the Divisional Manager of the appellant, served a charge-sheet on Gohain in which it was alleged that Gohain was guilty of three items of misconduct. "It has been brought to my notice", says the charge-sheet addressed to Gohain, "that you have been taking money from labourers at the time of payment of their wages and also from assisted emigrant labourers when they want to sign "J" Forms and also from non-workers in the lines". The charge-sheet further added that Mr Allison had checked on the information furnished to him against Gohain and had been satisfied that Gohain had been guilty of the said misconduct. Gohain was, therefore, called upon to offer his explanation why action should not be taken against him for taking bribes from labour on the estate. The charge concluded with suspension of Gohain with immediate effect.

(3.) This charge, no doubt, is not happily worded and the expressions used in it would seem to indicate that Mr Allison had already made up his mind that Gohain was guilty of the misconduct set out in the charge. In the circumstances of this case, however, we do not propose to base our decision on this infirmity in the charge. We will assume that the charge merely intended to say that Mr Allison was prima facie satisfied that a case for enquiry had been made out against Gohain. We would only like to emphasise that such incautious and loose language in the charge ought to be avoided, because it is likely to create an apprehension in the mind of the employee charge-sheeted that the person issuing the charge has already decided the case against him.