OIL INDIA LIMITED Vs. DHIRENDRA KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the respondent, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Das, brought an action for compensation for wrongful dismissal from service on 30-8-63 against the defendant-Company, the appellant before us. The suit was filed on 25-8-64 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge at Dibrugarh, and his claim to the extent of Rs. 1,228.00 was decreed on 8-1-68 with costs. Hence, this appeal against the said decree.

(2.) The statement of claim alleged that he was a permanent workman of the defendant, an industrial undertaking; he worked as Electric Overhead Operator in the General Workshop. He used to live in hired quarters; and as the latrine of his hired quarters was not serviceable, he used to go to the latrines near his workshop or the canteen. On 27-8-63, he had morning shift duty from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M.; he woke up in the morning and went to the workshop latrine at about 5-15 A.M.; and while coming out of the workshop latrine towards the canteen to take tea on the way to join his duty, he was falsely charged, by one Krishna Bahadur Chetri, Chowkidar of a contractor engaged in the construction work for the defendant company, with the alleged theft of two pieces of white metal (Exhibit-4) from the tool stores of the workshop of the defendant-company. On the basis of the report by the Chowkidar to the Engineer-in-Charge of the General Workshop, disciplinary' action was taken up against the workman, in accordance with the Standing Order of the company. A charge-sheet containing particulars of the misconduct alleged was served on him on 27-8-63, stating that enquiry would be started on 28-8- 63. The workman denied the charge, whence an enquiry was held for the alleged misconduct by the Engineer-in- Charge of the General Workshop. The Inquiring Officer came to the finding that the workman was not in the morning shift on 27-8-63, and that the charge of theft, which constitutes misconduct within the purview of the Standing Order, was proved against the workman. The Head of the Department viz. Fields Engineering Superintendent, accepted the finding of the Inquiring Officer, and dismissed the workman from service on 30-8-63. The workman went in appeal to the Labour Superintendent of the defendant-company, but he could not get any relief. His representation to the General Manager was also without success. Getting no relief, the workman brought an action as aforesaid in the Civil Court. The order of dismissal is challenged on the ground that the finding is based on ro evidence ; the proceeding violated the nrinciples of natural justice, as nlaintiff's witnesses were not called for though demanded. and the Enquiring Officer acted mala fide in conducting the enquiry. The defendant resisted the suit, and raised pleas, amongst others, that the Civil Court has ro jurisdiction to entertain the claim, and that the order of dismissal was validly made in the domestic enquiry nroperly held. It was further pleaded that on the materials found in the enquiry the charge of misconduct of the workman was proved.

(3.) The trial Court decided all the issues against the defendant. and decreed for a sum of Rs. 1.228.00. on the finding that the order of dismissal was wrongful. In this anneal. Mr. P. Choudhuri, learned counsel for the appellant. strenuously canvassed two questions: first, the Assistant District Judge has no jurisdiction to adiudicate the disnute arising out of dismissal of workman, in view of provision of Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), as amended with effect from 1-12-65, by Act No. 35 of 1965; and secondly, the finding of the trial Court is against evidence and perverse; the trial Court has not kept in view the principle of law that the finding of the management cannot be interfered with, in the absence of evidence that the management was guilty of unfair labour practice, or victimisation or that the enquiry suffered from infirmity for violation of the principles of natural justice.