TIN PRINTERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. A N KAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order of the Industrial Tribunal Delhi dated 31st August. 1964, declining to accord approval to the petitioners of the action taken by them in dismissing Ved Parkash (Respondent No. 2). This order was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on an application by the petitioners under section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner company has a factory situated at Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, and is engaged in the printing of metal sheets. Respondent Ved Parkash was engaged by the petitioners as a Lithographer in the factory, having joined service on 1st June, 1960. On three occasions charges were framed against respondent Ved Parkash. On 23rd June 1962, he was charged for habitually coming late to the factory and ultimately by an order dated 26th March, 1963 he was administered a warning. He was again charge-sheeted on 5th July, 1962, for not properly carrying out certain work entrusted to him and after an enquiry it was ordered on 28th March 1963, that he should not be paid wages for the period of suspension from 10th September, 1962 to 31st March,1963. The third charge was given to him on 7th July, 1962, out of which the present proceedings arose. After an enquiry he was ordered to be dismissed from 1st April, 1963, and the application for approval under section 33(2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act was made by the petitioners in view of the pendency of Industrial Dispute No. 326 of 1962 before the Tribunal.

(2.) One more fact which needs men tion is that for the suspension period of July and August 1962 respondent Ved Parkash made an application for recovery of wages before the Payment of Wages Authority. He made another application before the same Authority for payment of wages for-the period from 1st September, 1962 to 31st March, 1963, and the said Authority passed an order in favour of .respondent Ved Parkash directing payment of wages for that period. The Tribunal thought that the two previous charge-sheets dated 23rd June, 1962, and 5th July 1962 would have a hearing on the present case and he, therefore, decided to examine the parties and accordingly Kashav Datt, Enquiry Officer and a Director of the petitioner company, as well as Ved Parkash (respondent No. 2), were examined by it on 22nd July, 1964. The reply to the application under section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was filed by respondent Ved Parkash on 20th May, 1963, and on 5th September, 1963, ha made another application for amendment of the reply whereby he sought to include an additional plea, namely, that he have already been punished with a fine of Rs. 100.00 in connection with the charge-sheet dated 7th July, 1962, he could not be punished by dismissal again. This plea was based on the written-statement filed on behalf of the petitioner-company by Kashav Datt, Enquiry Officer, in the above-mentioned proceedings before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. In the said written statement a plea appears to have been taken by the petitioner-company that respondent Ved Parkash had been twiced punished with a penalty of Rs 100.00 each time and that penalty was still recoverable. The object of this allegation in the written statement must have been to enable the petitioner-company to claim a set-off against the money claimed by respondent Ved Parkash. It appears from the impugned order that Keshav Datt made a categorical statement that he never recommended punishment of fine in any of the enquiries, but admitted the above-mentioned written-statement having been filed before the Authority constituted under the Payment of Wages Act. He further stated that the paragraph relating to the imposition of penalty was wrong and sought to explain it on the ground that this was dictated by the Advocate of the petitioner-company and he signed it without realising the implications of the statement. The Tribunal Inter alia held-"It is clear from these statement? that a false plea was admittedly taken by Shri Keshav Datt, Enquiry officer, in matters connected with the opposite party workman that a fine of Rs. 100.00 each had been imposed in the two enquiries on him." The Tribunal proceeded to observe-"It is not only surprising that such a patently false and absurd plea was taken by the Enquiry Officer who was also a Director of the company but it also "shows to what unscrupulous length the management was prepared to go in opposing an application of the workman for payment of suspension period wages. It is impossible to accept the bona fides of an Enquiry Officer-cum-Director of the company, who is prepared to act in such an unscrupulous manner." On the basis of the aforesaid finding and on the basis of the finding that there was an inordinate delay in holding the enquiry and in the making of the report the Industrial Tribunal came to the following conclusion : -

(3.) The question has to be viewed from two points of view, namely (l)has there been a violation of natural justice in as'much as the petitioners were not given a proper opportunity to meet the case found against them, and (2) is the conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal based on evidence or, in other words, is the conclusion of victimisation and lack of good faith a possible conclusion from the factors taken by the Industrial Tribunal into consideration ? I think the answer on both the points must be in favour of the petitioners. In the written-statement filed before the Industrial Tribunal the only relevant allegation is contained in paragraph 5. The said paragraph reads as under :-