MANAGEMENT OF BALIPARA TEA ESTATE Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave raises the question of the validity and correctness of the Award dated 31-1-1957, of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam, directing the reinstatement, with all back wages, of one Nandeswar Bora, an employee of the appellant company which had dismissed him for misconduct, after holding a regular inquiry against him.

(2.) The appellant is a company incorporated under the English Companies Act, 1927, with its registered office in London. The appellant is the owner of Balipara Tea Estate in Assam, hereinafter referred to as "the Estate". Prior to 1953, McLoed and Company Limited was the Managing Agent of the appellant in respect of the Estate. Jardine Henderson Limited became the Managing Agent in 1953. Nandeswar Bora aforesaid had been in the employment of the appellant as a Women Mohurir in the Estate, and his duties included the preparation and maintenance of Leaf Weighment Book and the Daily Wages Book, also called Hazri book, in respect of female labour employed in the Estate, Female labour was employed in the Estate for plucking tea leaves and for doing other work on days when the female labourers were not doing the plucking work. The Leaf Weighment Book was mean to contain a record of the amount of the remuneration earned by each female labourer when employed for plucking leaves. The said Daily Wages Book was a record of the total remuneration earned by a female labourer by leaf-picking, as also remuneration for other work done by the labourer concerned, when not employed in plucking leaves. Thus, the Daily Wages Book would show the total amount of remuneration not only for plucking leaves, but also for every other work done during the week. The said Nandeswar Bora was responsible for the preparation and maintenance of the said Leaf Weigment Book and the Daily Wages Book, which used to be initialled by the Manager or the Assistant Manager of the Estate, in token of his having looked into the books. Payment of wages used to be made to female labourers in the Estate at the end of every week, on the basis of the entries in the said Daily Wages Book. After the transfer of the Managing Agency, as aforesaid in 1953, the accounts kept by the appellant company, including the books kept by the said Nandeswar Bora, were audited by the internal Auditor. The said Auditor found some discrepancies in the said Leaf Weighment Book, as compared with the Wages book for the year 1950. In 1954, the appellant's Auditor aforesaid, thoroughly examined the Leaf Weighment Books and the Daily Wages Book for years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953. As a result of his examination, the Auditor found a number of irregularities and discrepancies in the said books, showing that the said Nandeswar Bora had recorded in the said Daily Wages Book, sums as having been earned by some female labourers, although they had not earned the full amount as shown in the Daily Wages Book as compared with the relevant entries in the Leaf Weighment Books. The several excess payments had resulted in a loss of Rupees 467 odd to the Company.

(3.) As a result of the examination of the books by the internal Auditor of the Company, it was discovered that Nandeswer Bora was responsible for the said irregularities and the said loss. He was, therefore, placed under suspension with effect from 16-12-1954, pending further inquiry into the matter. By a letter dated 18-1-1955, the Manager of the Estate duly issued to said Nandeswar Bora a charge-sheet to the effect that between June, 1950, and August, 1953, he had willfully made false entries in the Daily Wages Book, which should have been maintained in accordance with the entries of factual leaf weighments. Some of the alleged false entries were specified with reference to the names of the women workers, wages earned as shown in the Leaf Weighment Book, and wages as per entries in the Wages Book, in respect of particular weeks. He was further told in the charge-sheet that the sum of Rs. 467 odd had been paid in excess to the women workers. He was called upon to explain the circumstances appearing against him, as set out in the charge-sheet. He was also called upon to show cause why he should not be dismissed for misconduct within the meaning of Cl. 10(a) of the Certified Standing Orders.