Case: Workmen of Dem Dima Tea Estate Vs. Dem Dima Tea Estate

Mudholkar, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an award made by the sixth industrial tribunal, West Bengal, Calcutta, upon a reference made to it by the Government of West Bengal under S.7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The dispute relates to the dismissal of Mangal Bhagat, head munshi, Dem Dima Tea Estate, in Dooars, West Bengal. This dispute has been sponsored by the appellant union.2. The case of the respondent, the tea estate, is that Mangal Bhagat, who was a person holding a position of great trust, confidence and responsibility, was found to have betrayed that trust on several occasions. He was warned time and again, but the warnings proved to be of no avail. It was discovered that a woman was working in the tea garden with his knowledge impersonating one Basia who was in fact an employee in that garden but had left the garden for good. He had also addressed a meeting within the garden on 11 November, 1955, in which made certain statements which were bound to poison the relations between the labourers and the management and also undermine the discipline of the labourers. For these reasons a chargesheet was served on Mangal Bhagat and an enquiry was held by the manager, Mr. Austin, on 24 November. During the enquiry the charges were held to be established and therefore an order dismissing him was passed. After the dismissal of Mangal Bhagat, he and his supporters created an explosive situation and breach of peace was apprehended, and armed police had to be posted in the garden to maintain peace.3. On behalf of the appellant union it was contended that the enquiry held by the manager was in breach of the principles of natural justice, that in fact it was no enquiry at all, that in arriving at his conclusions the manager relied upon his personal knowledge and therefore the dismissal was illegal. It was further contended that the allegations made against Mangal Bhagat were not true. It was said that it was no part of the duty of Mangal Bhagat to employ any labourers and that he had nothing to do with a certain woman labourer trying to pass off as Basia and working in the garden. It is also said that in the chargesheet the substance of the speech made by Mangal Bhagat was not reproduced and therefore he had no opportunity of meeting the allegations against him.The tribunal accepted the contentions of the union that the enquiry was not satisfactory. On this finding the tribunal independently investigated into the allegations and ultimately came to the conclusion that Mangal Bhagat knowingly allowed a certain woman labourer to impersonate Basia. It also held that the speech delivered by Mangal Bhagat at the meeting held on 11 November was inflammatory and tended to undermine the discipline of the labourers. On this finding it upheld the dismissal of Mangal Bhagat.4. Before us, on behalf of the appellant union Mr. Chatterjee has reiterated the contention raised before the tribunal. It seems to us, however, that the decision of the tribunal is based upon evidence which was adduced before it. In the first place, it may be pointed out that Mangal Bhagat has himself admitted in his cross-examination that he knew that a certain woman labourer was working in the garden in place of Basia, impersonating herself as Basia. He has also admitted that the manager had asked for his explanation about this. It was, however, contended by Mr. Chatterjee that it was quite usual for badlis to work in the garden during the absence of the permanent labourers. This, however, is not a case of badli at all because if a person is working as a badli or substitute, that person would be working in her or in his own name and not in the name of the person in whose place she or he was working. It is clear from the evidence that the head munshi occupies a very responsible position. In fact, in so far as the management is concerned, he ranks next to the assistant manager. It is his duty to supervise over the work of the labourers and it must be deemed to be a part of his duty of to see that only those persons who are on the roll of permanent workers are allowed to work as such. The reason for this is that permanent workers are entitled to certain benefits. Now, here in this case what happened was this. The woman labourer who was working in place of Basia and impersonating Basia became pregnant and claimed some maternity benefit. In making her claim she was trying to take advantages of the service actually rendered by Mst. Basia. When she was produced before the doctor-in-charge of the tea garden who has been working there for quite a large number of years and had known Mst. Basia, he discovered that she was not Basia but someone else. He brought this fact to the notice of the management and that is how the manager called for the explanation of Mangal Bhagat. It was certainly prejudicial to the interest of the tea garden that a person not entitled to a particular benefit should be put in a position in which she could, unless discovered, claim the benefit. It was clear dereliction of duty of the part of Mangal Bhagat to allow such things to go on unnoticed. The tribunal was, therefore, right in regarding this as sufficient cause for terminating the services of Mangal Bhagat. We may incidentally point out that there was evidence before the tribunal to the effect that Mangal Bhagat had instructed the baidar to write out the hazari of the woman who posed as Mst. Badia, and therefore, quite apart from the fact that in his supervisory capacity it was possible for Mangal Bhagat to know that impersonation was being practised by the woman labourer, it was he in fact who permitted that to be done. In addition, we may mention that he even pleaded to the manager to allow her to work in place of Basia.The second point urged by Mr. Chatterjee was that it was after Mangal Bhagat was examined by the tribunal that evidence was allowed to be adduced regarding the statements made by Mangal Bhagat in his speech. It is sufficient to say that this evidence was actually led before the manager who had made the enquiry, and all the papers connected with the enquiry were also before the tribunal. It was, therefore, possible for the appellant union on the basis of the material on the record before the tribunal, to deal with that evidence. If the statements were true, it was open to Mangal Bhagat who examined himself as a witness before the tribunal to deny that statement, but he had not done so. Apart from that, we are satisfied that his dismissal is justified on the first ground itself. The real reason why he has a grievance against the respondent is that in the year in question he was not given a building contract as used to be done in the past.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]4. Before us, on behalf of the appellant union Mr. Chatterjee has reiterated the contention raised before the tribunal.It seems to us, however, that the decision of the tribunal is based upon evidence which was adduced before it. In the first place, it may be pointed out that Mangal Bhagat has himself admitted in histhat he knew that a certain woman labourer was working in the garden in place of Basia, impersonating herself as Basia. He has also admitted that the manager had asked for his explanation about this. It was, however, contended by Mr. Chatterjee that it was quite usual for badlis to work in the garden during the absence of the permanent labourers. This, however, is not a case of badli at all because if a person is working as a badli or substitute, that person would be working in her or in his own name and not in the name of the person in whose place she or he was working. It is clear from the evidence that the head munshi occupies a very responsible position. In fact, in so far as the management is concerned, he ranks next to the assistant manager. It is his duty to supervise over the work of the labourers and it must be deemed to be a part of his duty of to see that only those persons who are on the roll of permanent workers are allowed to work as such. The reason for this is that permanent workers are entitled to certain benefits. Now, here in this case what happened was this. The woman labourer who was working in place of Basia and impersonating Basia became pregnant and claimed some maternity benefit. In making her claim she was trying to take advantages of the service actually rendered by Mst. Basia. When she was produced before theof the tea garden who has been working there for quite a large number of years and had known Mst. Basia, he discovered that she was not Basia but someone else. He brought this fact to the notice of the management and that is how the manager called for the explanation of Mangal Bhagat. It was certainly prejudicial to the interest of the tea garden that a person not entitled to a particular benefit should be put in a position in which she could, unless discovered, claim the benefit. It was clear dereliction of duty of the part of Mangal Bhagat to allow such things to go on unnoticed. The tribunal was, therefore, right in regarding this as sufficient cause for terminating the services of Mangal Bhagat. We may incidentally point out that there was evidence before the tribunal to the effect that Mangal Bhagat had instructed the baidar to write out the hazari of the woman who posed as Mst. Badia, and therefore, quite apart from the fact that in his supervisory capacity it was possible for Mangal Bhagat to know that impersonation was being practised by the woman labourer, it was he in fact who permitted that to be done. In addition, we may mention that he even pleaded to the manager to allow her to work in place of Basia.The second point urged by Mr. Chatterjee was that it was after Mangal Bhagat was examined by the tribunal that evidence was allowed to be adduced regarding the statements made by Mangal Bhagat in his speech. It is sufficient to say that this evidence was actually led before the manager who had made the enquiry, and all the papers connected with the enquiry were also before the tribunal. It was, therefore, possible for the appellant union on the basis of the material on the record before the tribunal, to deal with that evidence. If the statements were true, it was open to Mangal Bhagat who examined himself as a witness before the tribunal to deny that statement, but he had not done so. Apart from that, we are satisfied that his dismissal is justified on the first ground itself. The real reason why he has a grievance against the respondent is that in the year in question he was not given a building contract as used to be done in the past.