Appeal No 101 of 1960
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated 2nd March 1959 of the Labour Court Chotanagpur Division Ranchi in Misc
Cases Nos 7376 77 79 82 84 90 of 1958
N C Chatterjee A 
K Dutt and B P Maheshwari for the appellants
Sohrab D Vimadalal section N Andley J B Dadachanji Rameshwar Nath and P L Vohra for the respondents
March 25
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA J
When the management of an industry holds an enquiry into the charges against a workman for the purpose of deciding what action if any should be taken against him has the workman a right to be represented by a representative of his Union at the enquiry  That is the principal question raised in this appeal
The 14 appellants all workmen in Ms Tata Locomotive  Engineering Co Ltd Jamshedpur were dismissed under the orders of the company s management on the result of an enquiry held 408 against them
As industrial disputes between these workmen and the company were at that time pending before the Industrial Tribunal Bihar the company filed applications purporting to be under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act praying for approval of the action taken by it against the workmen
Workmen also filed applications under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act complaining of the action taken against them by the company
The applications of the com pany under section 33 were however ultimately held to have become infructuous and the applications under section 33A were only considered and disposed of by the Labour Court
The applications of these 14 appellants were however dismissed
Against that order the appellants have preferred this appeal after having obtained special leave for the purpose
The common contention urged on behalf of the appellants was that the enquiry on the results of which the orders of dismissal were based was not a proper and valid enquiry inasmuch as the workmen were not allowed to be represented at the enquiry by a representative of the Jamshedpur Union to which these workmen belonged
It has been urged that fair play demands that at such an enquiry the workman concerned should have reasonable assistance for examination and cross examination of the witnesses and for seeing that proper records are made of the proceeding It has been argued that a representative of the workmen s Union is best suited to give such assistance and in the absence of such assistance the workman does not get a fair chance of making his case before the Enquiry Officer
It appears that when on June 5 1953 requests were made on behalf of the several workmen that they should be allowed to be represented by a representative of the Jamshedpur Mazdoor Union at the enquiry to conduct the same on workmen s behalf the management rejected this request but informed the workmen that they could if they so desired be represented by a co worker from the workmen s own department at the enquiry
 The question which arises therefore is whether this refusal of the workmen s request to be represented at the 409 enquiry by a representative of their Union vitiated the enquiry
Accustomed as we are to the practice in the courts of law to skilful handling of witnesses by lawyers specially trained in the art of examination and cross examination of witnesses our first inclination is to think that a fair enquiry demands that the person accused of an act should have the assistance of some person who even if not a lawyer may be expected to examine and cross examine witnesses with a fair amount of skill
We have to remember however in the first place that these are not enquiries in a court of law
It is necessary to remember also that in these enquiries fairly simple questions of fact as to whether certain acts of misconduct were committed by a workman or not only fall to be considered and straightforward questioning which a person of fair intelligence and knowledge of conditions prevailing in the industry will be able to do will ordinarily help to elicit the truth
It may often happen that the accused workman will be best suited and fully able to cross examine the witnesses who have spoken against him and to examine witnesses in his favour
It is helpful to consider in this connection the fact that ordinarily in enquiries before domestic tribunals the person accused of any misconduct conducts his own case
Rules have been framed by Government as regards the procedure to be followed in enquiries against their own employees
No provision is made in these rules that the person against whom an enquiry is held may be represented by anybody else
When the general practice adopted by domestic tribunals is that the person accused conducts his own case we are unable to accept an argument that natural justice demands that in the case of enquiries into a chargesheet of misconduct against a workman he should be represented by a member of his Union
Besides it is necessary to remember that if any enquiry is not other
wise fair the workman concerned can challenge its validity in an industrial dispute
Our conclusion therefore is that a workman against whom an enquiry is being held by the management has no right to be represented at such enquiry by a 410 representative of his Union though of course an employer in his discretion can and may allow his employee to avail himself of such assistance
On behalf of the appellants Charan Singh Parmanand and K Ganguli it was urged that the orders of dismissal were bad inasmuch as they were based on a finding of guilt of misconduct not mentioned in the charge sheet
Each of these appellants it appears was accused in the charge sheet of four different acts of misconducts 1
Participating in an illegal strike 2
Leaving your appointed place of duty 3
Inciting other employees to strike work 4
Threatening and intimidating other workers
The Enquiry Officer found each of them guilty of the first three charges
He however recorded no findings as regards the fourth charge but instead found these workmen guilty of a misconduct not mentioned in the charge sheet viz  Behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner by shouting slogans on the shop floor 
On behalf of the appellants it is urged that as it is not possible to ascertain as to how this finding of guilt as regards misconduct not mentioned in the charge sheet affected the decision of the manager the order of dismissal must be set aside
The record however discloses three cases in which the manager made orders of dismissal on a finding of guilt of only of the acts of misconduct alleged in these three charges namely i participating in an illegal strike ii leaving the appointed place of duty and iii inciting other employees to strike work
There is no reason to think therefore that he would have discriminated in favour of these appellants Charan Singh parmanand and K Ganguli
The conclusion that Necessarily follows is that leaving out of account the misconduct not mentioned in the charge sheet viz behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner by  shouting slogans in the shop floor  the manager would have made the order of dismissal
The fact that this act of misconduct not mentioned in the charge sheet was also mentioned as one of the items on which the order of dismissal was based does not Therefore affect the validity of the order
411 The charge sheet against section B Nath accused him of four acts of misconduct 1
Participating in an illegal strike 2
Leaving your appointed place of duty 3
Inciting other employees to strike work 4
Threatening and intimidating other workers
 The relevant portion of the order of dismissal is in these words He has been found guilty of the following acts of misconduct For entering the works when not on duty and inciting other employees to strike work
He is therefore dismissed from the service of the company 
It is argued that as he has not been accused in the charge sheet  for entering the Works when not on duty  but this had been taken into consideration in deciding on his punishment the order is bad
It has to be noticed however that  entering the Works when not on duty  is not a misconduct under the company s standing orders
It is quite clear that the statement in the dismissal order as regards  entering the Works when not on duty  was really intended to state the manner and occasion in which the misconduct of  inciting other employees to strike work  was committed
The unnecessary and indeed slightly erroneous mention that he had been found guilty of entering the Works when not on duty  does not justify the conclusion that this fact of entering the works when not on duty  played any part in the mind of the punishing authority in determining his punishment
A statement in the dismissal order  that he has been found guilty of entering the Works when not on duty  as an act of misconduct is obviously erroneous
The act of misconduct of which this appellant was found guilty was  inciting other employees to strike work  and that is the only misconduct which weighed with the punishing authority
The contention that the mention in the dismissal order of  entering the Works when not on duty  as an act of misconduct of which he had 412 been found guilty vitiates the order of dismissal cannot therefore be accepted
On behalf of the appellant M 
R Ghosh it was urged that the alleged misconduct of  deliberately preventing the man in charge of the Compressor in the repair shop from carrying out his duty of which he is said to have been found guilty in the order of dismissal was not alleged in the charge sheet
This is really a misreading of the charge sheet
Against this appellant four acts of misconduct were alleged in the charge sheet  1 Participation in an illegal strike 2
Inciting other employees in the other sections of the Auto Division to strike work 3
Leaving your appointed place of duty or work without permission  4
Threatening and intimidating the other workers in the Repair Shop
 The dismissal order after mentioning that he was found guilty of the first three charges further states that he was found guilty of the following acts of misconduct threatening and intimidating the workers in the Repair Shop and deliberately preventing the man in charge of the Compressor in the Repair Shop from carrying out his duty
 The argument is that the charge as set out in the charge sheet does not mention this act of  deliberately preventing the man in charge of the Compressor in the Repair Shop from carrying out his duty
 This is obviously erroneous
The charge sheet after alleging the four acts of misconduct went on to give particulars of these charges
As regards the fourth charge viz  threatening and intimidating the other workers in the Repair Shop  the particulars were in thesewords By threatening and intimidating others in the repair shop you stopped them from working and also you took the Compressor man by his hand and got the Compressor stopped
 The statement in the dismissal order as regards his being quilty of deliberately preventing the man in charge of the Compressor in the Repair Shop from carrying out his duty  has in fact been mentioned in the charge sheet though in slightly different words
There is no substance therefore in the contention that 413 the acts of misconduct on which the dismissal order was based included one not mentioned in the chargesheet
The four acts of misconduct alleged in the chargesheet against Gurbux Singh were 1
Participating in an illegal strike 2
Leaving your appointed place of duty 3
Inciting other employees to strike work 4
Threatening and intimidating other workers
The Enquiry Officer s report found him guilty of the following acts 1
Participating in an illegal strike 2
Leaving his place of duty without permission 3
Inciting other employees to strike work and 4
Threatening and intimidating Mr Charan Singh to stop work
The manager s order on these is in these words  I have gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the proceedings of the Inquiry
Though Mr Gurubux Singh created a scene on the 11th June 1958 and left the place of enquiry still he was given a chance and the enquiry was held at a later date
Having gone through the evidence recorded against him during the enquiry I agree with the findings of the C P 0
The charges being of a very serious nature I order that he be dismissed from the services of the company with effect from the date of the charge sheet
 The formal dismissal order that was drawn up on the basis of this finding and served on him after stating that he was found guilty of the first three charges stated that he was found guilty of threatening and intimidating Mr Chakravarty chargeman who was compelled to stop work on 21 5 58
On his behalf it has been urged that though the enquiry officer s report says that he was guilty of  threatening and intimidating Charan Singh  the General Manager misled himself into thinking that he had threatened and intimidated Mr Chakravarty Chargeman
There being no finding by the Enquiry Officer that Gurubux Singh was guilty of threatening and intimidating 53 414 Mr Chakravarty Chargeman the General Manager was not entitled to take such a misconduct into consideration
On an examination of the Enquiry Officer s report it is however obvious that there is a clerical error in the concluding portion of the report in stating the finding as regards the fourth charge as  threatening and intimidating Charan Singh to stop work 
Charan Singh was really one of the striking workers and there was no quest ion of intimidating him
It is abundantly clear from the report that the case that was sought to be made as regards the fourth charge was that Chakravarty had been intimidated and that this allegation was found proved
There could not have been and was not any allegation of Charan Singh being intimidated
It is quite clear that the name of Charan Singh was accidentally mentioned in the concluding portion of the report instead of the correct name Chakravarty
There is no justification for thinking that the General Manager who had gone through the evidence and report of the Enquiry Officer could possibly have been misled by this clerical mistake
The relevant charge was threatening and intimidating other workers whether Charan Singh or Chakravarty was intimidated would not be of any consequence  In fact however the allegation against this appellant clearly was that Chakravarty had been intimidated by him
The body of the report shows that that was what the Enquiry Officer found proved
It is reasonable to think that that conclusion and not the wrong statement that Charan Singh was threatened and intimidated which was nobody s case weighed with the General Manager in determining the punishment
In our opinion there is no substance in the contention urged on his behalf that the finding that Charan Singh was threatened and intimidated as an act of misconduct instead of Chakravarty was wrongly relied upon
On behalf of the appellant section K Dhanda it has been urged that in making the dismissal Manager wrongly thought that guilty of all the four acts of misconduct order the General he had been found which were against him in the charge sheet though in fact he was 415 found guilty only of three and the fourth charge was not proved
The four acts of misconduct alleged in the charge sheet were  1 Participation in an illegal strike 2 Leaving his place of duty without permission 3 Inciting other employees in the Paint Shop Propeller Shaft Section Rear Axle Section and Press Section of the Auto Division to stop work 4 Behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner and threatening and intimidating another coworker
The formal order of dismissal that was drawn up stated that he had been found guilty of the following acts of misconduct 1 Participating in an illegal strike 2 Leaving his place of duty without permission 3 Inciting other employees in the Paint Shop Propeller Shaft Section Rear Axle Section and Press Section of the Auto Division  to stop work
4 Threatening and intimidating another employee by name Mr T section N Rao T No 6610602051 and stopping him from doing his work
He is therefore dismissed from the service of the Company  
The Enquiry Officer s report states the conclusions reached by him thus  From the statement of the witnesses it has been conclusively proved that Mr Dhanda 1 participated in an illegal strike 2 left his place of duty without permission 3 incited other employees to stop work
It can be said that the charge of threatening and intimidating has not been proved beyond doubt
 If one looks at the formal order of dismissal only it seems that though the charge of threatening and intimidating other employees was not proved against him the order of dismissal was partially based on it
If there was nothing else this might be a serious infirmity in the order
We find however that the General Manager recorded his order on the formal Report itself in these words 416 I have gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the proceedings of the enquiry
Even though the charge of threatening and intimidating other workers has not been proved against Mr Dhanda the other charges are also of a serious nature
In the circumstances order that he be dismissed from the service of the company with effect from the date of the charge sheet
 This was dated July 3 1958 and the formal order also bears the same date
Reading the two together it is quite clear that the General Manager in passing the order of dismissal proceeded on the basis that the charge of threatening and intimidating other employees had not been proved against Mr Dhanda but a mistake crept into the formal order that was drawn up and among the acts of misconduct mentioned as those of which Dhanda had been found guilty and on which the dismissal order was based the fourth charge as regards threatening and intimidating other employees was also mentioned
It is proper to hold that this was an accidents clerical mistake and that in fact the General Manager did not proceed on the wrong basis that Dhanda had been found guilty on this fourth charge also
The mere fact that such a clerical error appears in the formal order does not affect the validity of the order in any way
We have therefore come to the conclusion that the separate contentions pressed oil behalf of seven of the appellants that the Tribunals below did not consider certain infirmities in the order cannot also be sustained
The appeal is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant who was a minor filed an application by his mother as his guardian under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the City Magistrate Allahabad praying for an order against the respondent for maintenance alleging that he was his putative father
The Magistrate summarily dismissed the appellant s application without issuing notice to the respondent as required by s488 Criminal Procedure Code
The Court of Session in revision against the Magistrate s order came to the conclusion that it was a fit case in which the Magistrate ought to have issued summons to the respondent and submitted the record to the High Court recommending that the order passed by the Magistrate be set aside and that the Magistrate be ordered to proceed with the application in accordance with law
TheHighCourtrejectedtheSessionsCourt preference and refused to certify that the case was a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court
On appeal by special leave  Held that the appellant was not given full opportunity to establish his case in the manner prescribed by law
432 Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate a preliminary enquiry before issuing a notice but lays down that all evidence under that section should be taken in the presence of the respondent or his pleader indicating thereby that one enquiry only should be held after notice
Sub section 6 of section 488 is mandatory in form and in clear terms it prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate
It is the duty of the Court before making the order to find definitely though in a summary manner the paternity of child
Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a self contained one and the relief given under it is essentially of a civil nature
It prescribes a summary procedure for compelling a man to maintain his wife or children
The findings of a Magistrate under this chapter are not final and the parties can legitimately agitate their rights in a civil court