HINDUSTHAN STEEL Vs. ROURKELA MAZDOOR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the Hindusthan Steel, Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant praying for issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with full back wages of B. Sabat, a driver who was dismissed from service by the management by its order dated 3-7-1962. B. Sabat was appointed as a driver in the Rourkela Steel Plant on a three-year-contract and he joined his duty in the forenoon of 6-1-1961. On 13-2-1962, he was served with a charge-sheet containing the following four charges:

(2.) IT is contended at the outset by Sri B. B. Rath appearing for the petitioner that a full and fair enquiry was held by the domestic Tribunal in this case and as such the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in embarking upon a fresh enquiry into the charges. It is well established that in respect of industrial disputes arising from orders passed by the employers terminating the services of their employees, the following principles govern the limits and scope of the exercise of the Industrial tribunal's jurisdiction in respect of such disputes: where an employer serves the relevant charge or charges on his employee and holds a proper and fair enquiry, it is open to him to act upon the report submitted to him by the Enquiry Officer and to dismiss the employee concerned. If the enquiry has been properly held, the order of dismissal passed against the employee as a result of such an enquiry can be challenged if it is shown that the conclusions reached at the departmental enquiry were perverse or the impugned dismissal is vindictive or mala fide, and amounts to an unfair labour practice. In such an enquiry before the Tribunal, it is not open to the Tribunal to sit in appeal over the findings recorded at the domestic enquiry. When a proper enquiry has been held, it would be open to the Enquiry Officer holding the domestic enquiry to deal with the matter on merits, bona fide and come to his own conclusions. Where, however, it appears that the departmental enquiry held by the employer is not fair in the sense that proper charge had not been served on the employee or proper or full opportunity had not been given to the employee to meet the charge, or the enquiry has been affected by other grave irregularities vitiating it, then the position would be that the Tribunal would be entitled to deal with the merits of the dispute as to the dismissal of the employee for itself. The same result would follow if no enquiry has at all been held. (See Ritz. Theatre (Private) Ltd. v. Its Workmen. AIR 1963 SC 295 ). An enquiry against an employee cannot be said to have been properly held unless (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed of the charges levelled against him; (ii) witnesses are examined ordinarily in the presence of the employee in respect of the charges; (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses; (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes and (v) the Enquiry officer records his findings with reasons in his report.

(3.) THE Labour Court first proceeded to consider whether the domestic enquiry was fairly conducted and in doing so he noticed several infirmities. He has rightly found that not a single witness was examined on behalf of the Management before the delinquent was subjected to an examination by way of questions and answers. It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is sought to be supported. In a similar case where the enquiry against an employee consisted in putting question to each workman in turn and where no witness was examined in support of the charge before the workman was questioned, the supreme Court in Meenglas Tea Estate v. Its Workmen. (1963) 2 Lab LJ 392 : (AIR 1963 SC 1719), held that the enquiry was vitiated because it was not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Again the enquiry Committee utilised the statement of one Bansidhar Jena with regard to the second charge without examining him in the presence of the delinquent and without giving him an opportunity to cross-examine Sri Jena. Even the statement of Sri Jena does not appear to have been shown to the delinquent. Similarly, in regard to the fourth charge, the Enquiry Committee utilised the statement given by one Dr. Agarwal without examining him in the presence of the delinquent and affording him an opportunity to cross-examine him. Similar use also was made of the statement of the Officer-in-charge of Transport Section without examining him and without even showing his statement to the delinquent. The Supreme Court has held in Sur enamel and Stamp-ing Works Ltd. , v. Their Workmen, (1963) 2 Lab LJ 367 : (AIR 1963 SC 1914), that where the enquiring officer based his conclusions against the concerned workman on the report given by other employees behind the back of the concerned workman without giving copies of such report to him and without making them available for cross-examination at the enquiry, the enquiry must be held to be unfair. Lastly, the Labour Court noticed that the report of the Enquiry committee submitted to the Management (Annexure C) is only a catalogue of facts or evidence without any inference or finding and that after this report was submitted to the Senior Deputy General Manager, this officer too has not recorded his conclusions on the evidence recorded by the Committee and straightway called upon the delinquent to show cause why he should not be dismissed. As held by the supreme Court in Khardah and Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1963) 2 Lab LJ 452 : (AIR 1964 SC 719) this is a serious infirmity in enquiry. This is what their Lordships said-