Case Summary
In Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs Gajadhar Nath (2022 Lab IC 323, CDJ 2021 SC 1025), Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court consisting of Justices Hemant Gupta & V. Ramasubramanian lay down (reiterate) the scope of adjudicators under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The brief facts of the matter is as follows:
The Appellant terminated the services of the Respondent on certain charges of misconduct after conducting a Domestic Enquiry. This was challenged by the Respondent before the Industrial Tribunal by raising an Industrial Dispute. After giving a preliminary finding that the domestic enquiry conducted against the Respondent was invalid, the parties were allowed to adduce evidence. Commenting on the nature of evidence adduced by the witness, the Tribunal set aside the order of termination and restored the Respondent in his service. This was also upheld by the High Court of Allahabad. Aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
While setting aside the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in so far as it sat on appeal in judgment of the employer (Appellant in the matter), the Court reiterated the role of the adjudicators (Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal etc) under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 citing various precedents in the following words:
"1. The right to take disciplinary action and to decide upon the quantum of punishment are mainly managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a Tribunal, the latter has powers to see if action of the employer is justified.
2. Before imposing the punishment, an employer is expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if applicable, and principles of natural justice. The enquiry should not be an empty formality.
3. When a proper enquiry has been held by an employer and the finding of misconduct is plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at the enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decision of the employwer as an appellate body. The interference with the decision of the employwer will be justified only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the management is guilty of victimisation, unfair labour practice or mala fide.
4. Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the lagality and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity to the employwer and the employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.
5. The effect of an employwer not holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case. On the other hand, the issue about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence adduced before it, has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases, the point about the exercise of managerial functions does not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no enquiry.
6. The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after the enquiry conducted by the employwer is found to be defective.
7. It has never been recognised that the Tribunal should striaght away, without anything more, direct reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee once it is found that no domestice enquiry has been held or the said enquiry is found to be defective.
8. An employer, who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time before the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask for it at the appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse. The giving of an opportunity to an employer to adduce evidence for the first time is in the interest of both the management and the employee and to enable the Tribunal itself to be satisfied about the alleged misconduct.
9. Once the misconduct is proved either in the qneuiry conducted by an employer or by evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimisation.
10. In a particular case, after setting aside the order of dismissal, whether a workman should be reinstated or paid compensation is within the judicial decision of a Labour Court or Tribunal."
In addition to the above principles, the following has also been discussed in the judgment:
1. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act does not apply.
2. The simple point relating to adducing evidence in a domestic enquiry is whether there is some evidence or is there no evidence - not in the sense of technical rules governing regular proceedings but in a fair commensense as people of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept.
3. Sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny.
4. The initiation of criminal proceedings or not initiating proceedings against the employee has no bearing to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings.
(This is just a case summary and not an opinion piece or case comment.)
Comments