Appeal No 517 of 1963
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated September 28 1960 of the Industrial Tribunal Ernakulam in Industrial Dispute No 81 of 1958
G B Pai J B Dadachanji O C Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the appellant
P Govinda Menon M section K Iyengar and M R K Pillai for respondent No 1
March 31 1964
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR C J
This appeal by special leave raises a short question about the validity of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal Ernakulam directing the appellant the Tata Oil Mills Co Ltd to reinstate its workman K K Raghavan whom it had dismissed with effect from the 14th of November 1955
The appellant is a public limited concern engaged in the industry of soaps and toilet articles
It owns three factories in addition to 12 sales offices
One of these factories is located at Tatapuram Ernakulam in the State of Kerala
Mr Raghavan was working with the appellant at its factory at Tatapuram
It was reported to the appellant that on the 12th November 1955 Mr Raghavan and another employee of the appellant Mr Mathews by name waylaid Mr C A Augustine the Chargeman of the 557 Soap Plant of the company s factory at Tatapuram while he was returning home after his duty in the second shift and assaulted him
That is why charge sheets were issued against both Messrs Raghavan and Mathews on the 14th November 1955
Pursuant to the service of the charge sheets two officers were appointed by the appellant to hold an enquiry but the respondent Union represented to the appellant that justice would not be done to Raghavan and Mathews unless somebody outside Tatapuram was invited to hold the enquiry
Thereupon the General Manager of the appellant appointed Mr Y D Joshi who is a Law Officer of the appellant in the Head Office to hold the enquiry
Mr Joshi held the enquiry from the 27th to 30th December 1955 and subsequently he made his report to the General Manager of the appellant on the 7th January 1956
At that time an industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and its employees and so the appellant applied to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the dismissal of Messrs Raghavan and Mathews
The Tribunal approved of the dismissal of Raghavan but did not accord its approval of the dismissal of Mathews
Acting in pursuance of the approval accorded by the Tribunal the appellant dismissed Raghavan with effect from the 14th November 1955
Not satisfied with the order of dismissal the respondent raised an industrial dispute in regard to the propriety and validity of the said dismissal of Raghavan and that has become the subject matter of the present reference which was ordered on the 3rd of December 1958
It is on this reference that the Industrial tribunal has held that the appellant was not justified in dismissing Raghavan and so has ordered his reinstatement
This is the order which has given rise to the present appeal by special leave
The first point which calls for our decision in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the facts proved against Raghavan did not attract the provisions of Standing Order 22viii of the Certified Standing Orders of the appellant
The said standing order provides that without prejudice to the general meaning of the term misconduct it shall be deemed to mean and include inter alia drunkenness fighting riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour within or without the factory
It is common ground that the alleged assault took place outside the factory and in fact at a considerable distance from it
The Tribunal has held that the assault in question can be treated as a purely private matter between Raghavan and Augustine with which the appellant was not concerned and as a result of which standing order 22viii cannot be invoked against Raghavan
Mr Menon who has appeared for the respondent before us has 558 contended that in construing standing orders of this charac ter we must take care to see that disputes of a purely private or individual type are not brought within their scope
He argues that on many occasions individual employees may have to deal with private disputes and sometimes as a result of these private disputes assault may be committed
Such an assault may attract the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code but it does not fall under standing order 22viii
In our opinion this contention is well founded
It would we think be unreasonable to include within standing order 22viii any riotous behaviour without the factory which was the result of purely private and individual dispute and in course of which tempers of both the contestants became hot
In order that standing order 22viii may be attracted the appellant should be able to show that the disorderly or riotous behaviour had some rational connection with the employment of the assailant and the victim
In the present case however it is quite clear that the assault committed by Raghavan on Augustine was not a purely private or individual matter
What the occasion for this assault was and what motive actuated it have been consider ed by the domestic Tribunal and the findings of the domestic Tribunal on these points must be accepted in the present proceedings unless they are shown to be based on no evi dence or are otherwise perverse
Now when we look at the report of the Enquiry Officer it is clear that on the evidence given by Mr M M Augustine and K T Joseph it appeared that the assault was committed by Raghavan on C A Augustine because he was in favour of the introduction of the Incentive Bonus Scheme
It appears that the introduction of this incentive bonus scheme was approved by one set of workmen and was opposed by another with the result that the two rival unions belonging to these two sets respectively were arrayed against each other on that question
The evidence of the two witnesses to whom we have just referred clearly shows that when Raghavan assaulted C A Augustine he expressly stated that Augustine was a black leg Karinkali who was interested in increased production in the company with a view to obtain bonus  and the report further shows that the Enquiry Officer believed this evidence and came to the conclusion that the assault was motivated by this hostility between Raghavan and C A Augustine
In fact the charge framed clearly suggested that the assault was made for that motive
It was alleged in the charge that Augustine was assaulted to terrorise the workmen who had been responsible for giving increased production under the incentives bonus scheme
According to the charge such acts were highly subversive of discipline
The Enquiry Officer has held that in the light of the evidence given by M M Augustine and 559 K T Joseph the charge as framed had been proved
This finding clearly means that the assault was not the result of a purely individual or private quarrel between the assailant and his victim but it was referable to the difference of opinion between the two in regard to the introduction of the incentive bonus scheme on which the two unions were sharply divided
Therefore if Raghavan assaulted Augustine solely for the reason that Augustine was supporting the plea for more production that cannot be said to be outside the purview of standing order 22viii
The next point which needs to be considered arises out of a plea which has been strenuously urged before us by Mr Menon that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and so the Tribunal was entitled to go into the evidence itself and decide whether Raghavan s dismissal was justified or not
The legal position in this matter is not in doubt
If it appears that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of the natural justice and a reasonable opportunity was not for instance given to Raghavan to lead evidence in support of his defence that would be a valid ground on which the Tribunal can discard the finding of the domestic enquiry and consider the matter on the merits uninfluenced by the said finding
Unfortunately for the respondent however on the material on record it is very difficult to sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice
The whole of this contention is based on the fact that Raghavan wanted to examine two witnesses Messrs M P Menon and Chalakudi
It appears that Raghavan told the Enquiry Officer that he wanted to examine these two wit nesses and he requested him to invite the said two witnesses to give evidence
The Enquiry Officer told Raghavan that it was really not a part of his duty to call the said two witnesses and that Raghavan should in fact have kept them ready himself
Even so in order to assist Raghavan the Enquiry Officer wrote letters to the two witnesses
Mr Menon replied expressing his inability to be present before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer communicated this reply to Raghavan so that for Raghavan s failure to examine Menon no blame can be attributed to the enquiry officer at all
In regard to Chalakudi it appears that he sent one letter addressed to the Enquiry Officer and it reached him on the 31st December 1955 the day on which he was leaving for Bombay
This letter was not signed and so the Enquiry Officer took no action on it and gave no time to Chalakudi to appear three or four days later as had been 560 suggested in that unsigned letter
The Tribunal thought that this attitude on the part of the Enquiry Officer was unsympathetic and that introduced an element of Unfairness in the enquiry itself
We are unable to appreciate how such a conclusion can follow on facts which are admitted
We do not think the Enquiry Officer was called upon to accept an unsigned letter and act upon it
Besides the Enquiry Officer had gone to Ernakulam from Bombay for holding this enquiry because the respondent Union itself wanted that the enquiry should be held by some other officer outside the local station and it was known that the Bombay Officer would go back as soon as the enquiry was over
In such a case if Raghavan did not take steps to produce his witnesses before the Enquiry Officer how can it be said that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice Mr Menon has suggested that the Enquiry Officer should have taken steps to get the witnesses M P Menon and Chalakudi brought before him for giving evidence
This suggestion is clearly untenable
In a domestic enquiry the officer holding the enquiry can take no valid or effective steps to compel the attendance of any witness just as the appellant produced its witnesses before the officer Raghavan should have taken steps to produce his witnesses
His witness Menon probably took the view that it was beneath his dignity to appear in a domestic enquiry and Chalakudi was content to send an unsigned letter and that too so as to reach the Enquiry Officer on the day when he was leaving Ernakulam for Bombay
It would be unreasonable to suggest that in a domestic enquiry it is the right of the charge sheeted employee to ask for as many adjournments as he likes
It is true that if it appears that by refusing to adjourn the hearing at the instance of the charge sheeted workman the Enquiry Officer failed to give the said workman a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence that may in a proper case be considered to introduce an element of infirmity in the enquiry but in the circumstances of this case we do not think it would be possible to draw such an inference
The record shows that the Enquiry Officer went out of his way to assist Raghavan and if the witnesses did not turn up to give evidence in time it was not his fault
We must accordingly hold that the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry suffered from the infirmity that it was conducted contrary to the principles of natural justice
Let us then consider whether the dismissal of Raghavan is actuated by malafides or amounts to victimisation
In regard to the plea of victimisation the Tribunal has definitely found against the respondent
I do not for a moment believe says the Tribunal that the management foisted a 561 case against the ex worker
Regarding the allegation of victimisation there is no sufficient evidence in the case that the management or its Manager Mr John was motivated with victimisation or unfair labour practice
This finding is quite clearly in favour of the appellant
The Tribunal however thought that because the Enquiry Officer did not give an adjournment to Raghavan to examine his witnesses that introduced an element of malafides
It has also observed that since the case against Raghavan did not fall within the purview of standing order 22viii and yet the appellant framed a charge against Raghavan under that standing order that introduced another element of malafides
It is on these grounds that the conclusion as to malafides recorded by the Tribunal seems to rest
In regard to the first ground we have already held that the Tribunal was not justified in blaming the Enquiry Officer for not adjourning the case beyond 31st December 1955
In regard to the second ground we are surprised that the Tri bunal should have taken the view that since in its opinion standing order 22viii did not apply to the facts of this case the framing of the charge under the said standing order and the finding of the domestic Tribunal in favour of the appellant on that ground showed malafides
It seems to us that the Tribunal has completely overlooked an elementary principle of judicial approach that even if a judge or Tribunal may reach an erroneous conclusion either of fact or of law the mere error of the conclusion does not make the conclusion malafiedes
Besides as we have just indicated on the merits we are satisfied that the Tribunal was in error in holding that standing order 22viii did not apply
Therefore the finding of the Tribunal that the dismissal of Raghavan was malafide cannot possibly be sustained
There is one more point which has been press Id before us by Mr Menon
In Phulbari Tea Estate vs Its Workmen1 this Court has held that even if a domestic enquiry is found to be defective the employer may seek to justify the dismissal of his employee by leading evidence before the Tribunal to which an industrial dispute arising out of the impugned dismissal has been referred for adjudication
Mr Menon contends that by parity of reasoning in cases where the em ployee is unable to lead his evidence before the domestic Tribunal for no fault of his own a similar opportunity should be given to him to prove his case in proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal
In our opinion this contention is not well founded
The decision in the case of Phulbari Tea Estate supra proceeds on the basis which is of basic importance in industrial adjudication that findings properly recorded in 1 1960 1 SCR 32 562 domestic enquiries which are conducted fairly cannot be re examined by Industrial adjudication unless the said findings are either perverse or are not supported by any evidence or some other valid reason of that character
In such a case the fact that the finding is not accepted by the Industrial Tribunal would not necessarily preclude the employee from justifying the dismissal of his employee on the merits provided of course he leads evidence before the Industrial Tribunal and persuades the Tribunal to accept his case
That however is very different from a case like the present
In the case before us the enquiry has been fair the Enquiry Officer gave Raghavan ample opportunity to lead his evidence
If at reasonable opportunity had been denied to the employee that would have made the enquiry itself bad and then the employer would have been required to prove his case before the Industrial Tribunal and in dealing with the dispute the Industrial Tribunal would have been justified in completely ignoring in the findings of the domestic enquiry
But if the enquiry has been fairly conducted it means that all reasonable opportunity has been given to the employee to prove his case by leading evidence
In such a case how can the court hold that merely because the witnesses did not appear to give evidence in support of the employee s case he should be allowed to lead such evidence before the Industrial Tribunal
If this plea is upheld no domestic enquiry would be effective and in every case the matter would have to be tried afresh by the Industrial Tribunal
Therefore we are not prepared to accede to Mr Menon s argument that the Tribunal was justified in considering the merits of the dispute for itself in the present reference proceedings
Since the enquiry has been fairly conducted and the findings recorded therein are based on evidence which is believed there would be no justification for the Industrial Tribunal to consider the same facts for itself
Findings properly recorded at such enquiries are binding on the parties unless of course it is known that the said findings are perverse or are not based on any evidence
There is yet another point which remains to be considered
The Industrial Tribunal appears to have taken the view that since criminal proceedings had been started against Raghavan the domestic enquiry should have been stayed pending the final disposal of the said criminal proceedings
As this Court has held in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd vs Kushal Bhan1 it is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a charge framed against a workman in a domes tic enquiry is being tried in a criminal court the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case
It would be particularly appropriate to 1  563 adopt such a course where the charge against the workman is of a grave character because in such a case it would be unfair to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he may take before the criminal court
But to say that domestic enquiries may be stayed pending criminal trial is very different from saying that if an employer proceeds with the domestic enquiry in spite of the fact that the criminal trial is pending the enquiry for that reason alone is vitiated and the conclusion reached in such an enquiry is either bad in law or malafide
In fairness we ought to add that Mr Menon did not seek to justify this extreme position
Therefore we must hold that the Industrial Tribunal was in error when it characterised the result of the domestic enquiry as malafide partly because the enquiry was not stayed pending the criminal proceedings against Raghavan
We accordingly hold that the domestic enquiry in this case was properly held and fairly conducted and the conclusions of fact reached by the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence which he accepted as true
That being so it was not open to the Industrial Tribunal to reconsider the same questions of fact and come to a contrary conclusion
The result is the appeal is allowed
The order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is set aside and the reference made to it is answered in favour of the appellant
Before we part with this appeal we ought to add that Mr Pai for the appellant has fairly offered to pay ex gratia Rs 1000 to Raghavan in addition to the amount which has already been paid to him by the appellant in pursuance of the order of this Court granting stay to the appellant pending the final disposal of the present appeal
There would be no order as to costs
Appeal allowed


Summary:
On a report that R and M both employees of the appellant waylaid A another employee and assaulted him outside the factory the appellant held an enquiry and sought approval for the dismissal of R and M from the Industrial Tribunal before which an industrial dispute was pending
The Tribunal approved the dismissal of R but not that of M Thereupon R was dismissed
The respondent raised an industrial dispute in regard to the propriety and validity of the said dismissal
On reference of this dispute the Industrial Tribunal held that the assault could be treated as a private matter between R and A with which the appellant was not concerned and as a result Standing Order 22viii could not be invoked against R and it ordered the reinstatement of R On appeal by special leave Held i that It would be unreasonable to include within Standing Order 22viii any riotous behaviour without the factory which was the result of purely private and individual dispute and in course of which tempers of both the contestants become hot
In order that standing order 22viii may be attracted the appellant should be able to show that the disorderly or riotous behaviour had some rational connection with the employment of the assailant and the victim
ii In the present case the assault by R on A was not a purely private or individual matter but was referable to the difference of opinion between the two in regard to the introduction of incentive bonus scheme and that cannot be said to be outside the purview of standing order 22viii
iii The Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry suffered from the infirmity that it was conducted contrary to the principles of natural justice
It is true that if it appears that by refusing to adjourn
the hearing at the instance of charge sheeted workmen the Enquiry Officer failed to give the said workmen a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence that may in a proper case be considered to introduce an element of infirmity in the enquiry but in the circumstances of this case it would not be possible to draw such an inference
iv The finding of the Tribunal that the dismissal was malafic cannot possibly be sustained
The Tribunal has completely overlooked an elementary principle of judicial approach that even if a judge or Tribunal may reach an erroneous conclusion either of fact or of law the mere error of the conclusion does not make the conclusion malafide
556 v Since the domestic enquiry had been fairly conducted and the findings recorded therein were based on Evidence which was believed there was no justification for the Industrial Tribunal to consider the same facts for itself
Findings properly recorded at such enquiries are binding on parties unless of course it is shown that such findings are perverse or are not based on any evidence
Phulbari Tea Estate vs Its Workmen 1960 1 SCR 32 referred to
vi The Industrial Tribunal was in error when it charac terised the result of the domestic enquiry as malafide partly because the enquiry was not stayed pending criminal proceedings against R
It is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a charge framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a criminal court the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case
It would be particularly appropriate to adopt such a course when the charge is of a grave character because it would be unfair to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he may take before the criminal court
But to say that domestic enquiries may be stayed pending criminal trial is very different from saying that if an employer proceeds with the domestic enquiry inspite of the fact that the criminal trial is pending the enquiry for that reason alone is vitiated and the conclusion arrived at in such an enquiry is either bad in law or malafide
Delhi Cloth  General Mills Ltd vs Kishan Bhan   referred to