Case: Management of Travancore Titanium Products Limited Vs. Their Workmen

Gajendragadkar, C.J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, the Management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., Trivandrum, and the respondents its workmen through their Union. The dispute in question was in regard to the dismissal of one of the employees of the appellant, Mr. N. Ramaswamy Pillai, who was a Store Keeper at Trivandrum. The respondent urged that the dismissal of Pillai was unjustified and he was entitled to reinstatement. The appellant contended that the dismissal was justified and the workman concerned was entitled to no relief. The Tribunal has upheld the plea raised by the respondent and has directed the appellant to reinstate Pillai in its employment and to pay him his back wages in full from the date of his dismissal until the date of his reinstatement. It is the correctness and propriety of this award that is challenged before us by Mr. Pai on behalf of the appellant. 2. It is common ground that Pillai was, at the relevant time, the Store Keeper in-charge of stores in the appellant concern. In the course of his duties, he had to despatch raw materials to the Processing Plant where the product of Titanium Dioxide is manufactured. The material supplied in this case in respect of which the workman Pillai was charged is Glue. This material is required for the processing of Titanium Dioxide. 3. On the 15th September, 1961, Pillai was served with a memo, to explain certain discrepancies found in the issue of stores of glue in the month of July, 1961. An explanation was submitted by him on the 16th September, 1961. Later, on the 27th September, 1961, another memo was served on Pillai. This memo sought to correct the amount of glue mentioned in the first memo. On the 23rd September, 1961, yet another memo of charge was served on him, and he gave his explanation on the 26th September, 1961. The next day, he was served with a formal charge-sheet stating that an enquiry would be conducted against him on the 30th September, 1961; the same day he was placed under suspension. An enquiry was then conducted on the 30th September, 1961, and as a result of the enquiry, he was dismissed from service on the 5th October, 1961.These charges were framed against Pillai. The first was that in the Raw Material Stores Requisition Particulars given below, the third copies retained in the Requisition Book showed the quantity of glue supplied by him as a bag of 93 1bs, but it was noted that he had altered the figure 1 to 2 Bags of 186 1bs in the 1st and 2nd copies thereof, by over-writing thereby showing a false issue of 1 extra bag to 93 1bs of glue without actually issuing it to the Requisition Section of the Plant. Then followed a reference to several entries made by Pillai in the Requisition Book. After they were set out, certain entries in the Requisition Book which showed suspicious over-writing were mentioned, the result of which was to change 1 bag of glue into 2; this was charge No. 2. The third charge was in relation to requisition No. 7339 issued on the 3rd August, 1961 by Mr. R. V. George, and had alleged that Pillai had interpolated an entry in the said Requisition relating to 1 bag of glue without actually issuing the material. The substance of the charges was that Pillai had falsely manipulated the Stores Records knowing the alterations to be false and with deliberate intention of defrauding the company. The charge-sheet further stated that this conduct on the part of Pillai amounted to misconduct under Standing Order 20, sub-clause (4), of the standing orders for Staff. 4. Before the Tribunal, the preliminary question which arose for decision was whether the domestic enquiry held against Pillai was fair or not. It is well-settled that if the domestic enquiry held against an industrial employee is fair, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be successfully challenged unless it is shown that the said findings are perverse in the sense that they are not based on any evidence at all. If, on the other hand, the enquiry is held to be unfair, the said findings do not justify the order of dismissal; and it would be open to the employer to justify the dismissal by leading evidence before the Tribunal. In the present case, the employer has adopted this alternative course; and as we shall presently point out, the Tribunal has dealt with the evidence led before it by the appellant, because it held that the enquiry was unfair and it had, therefore, to examine the merits of dismissal for itself.In regard to the validity of the enquiry, the Tribunal has found that four serious infirmities vitiated the enquiry. These infirmities were : (1) that the appellant did not give Pillai three clear days notice of the intention of the management to conduct the enquiry; (2) it did not furnish Pillai with a copy of the report of the preliminary enquiry received by the management against the employee; (3) it did not serve Pillai with a list of the witnesses proposed to be examined at the enquiry; and (4) that it refused him the assistance of another member of staff of his own choice at the enquiry. According to the Tribunal, these four infirmities, in substance, contravened the requirements of Standing Order 20, and so, the enquiry was completely invalid. 5. Mr. Pai for the appellant attempted to argue that the failure of the appellant to give three clear days notice of the intended enquiry was more technical than substantial. According to Mr. Pai, Pillai had notice of two and half days and that, Mr. Pai suggests, should be taken to be substantial compliance with the requirement of the relevant standing order. We are not impressed by this argument. Since the standing order insists upon notice of three clear days being given to the workman, failure to comply with the standing order does introduce an infirmity in the proceedings. 6. Then as to the failure of the management to allow Mr. Kesava Iyer to assist Pillai, Mr. Pai sought to suggest that the finding of the Tribunal was not unambiguous. We are not impressed by this argument either. The Tribunal has stated that Mr. Iyer wanted to assist Pillai, but that he was not allowed to do so. In this connection, the Tribunal has made a significant observation, that it did not think that it should make further comment on this point. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the enquiry contravened the mandatory provision of the relevant Standing Order, and was thus entirely vitiated. That being so, the appellant cannot rely upon the findings recorded at the said enquiry and cannot justify the dismissal of Pillai on the strength of the said findings.That takes us to the merits of the appellants case that Pillai was guilty of misconduct. In dealing with this point, we ought to point out that before the Tribunal, charge No. I was not pressed, and no evidence was adduced in respect of charge No. 3; and that means that the Tribunal was called upon to consider whether the appellant had proved its case against Pillai in regard to charge No. 2. 7. In order to appreciate the case of the appellant in respect of this charge, it is necessary to refer briefly to the practice prevailing in the establishment of the appellant in the matter of issue of materials from the Stores and the records maintained in that behalf. The appellant is engaged in the production of Titanium Dioxide and the raw materials required for this production are Glue, Sodium Sulphide, Antimony Oxide, Potassium Sulphate and others. These raw materials are kept in the Stores and are issued from the Stores in accordance with the requisition made by the Supervisors in the Plant where the processing is carried out. The requisitions are made in a book form with triplicate sheets. The quantity of each item required is noted down in the first column of the requisitions by the Supervisor concerned. Then the requisition is sent to the Stores with a messenger who takes the delivery of the materials issued. The person in-charge of the Stores notes down the quantity of each item issued in the third column, and then he tears off the first two copies of the requisitions and retains them in the Stores. The third copy of the requisition is not removed from the book and is sent back to the Plant along with the materials issued. The requisition memos retained in the Stores are then forwarded the very next day by the Store Keeper to the Stores Department with a covering letter in which the number of requisitions would be specified. Separate Bin Cards are maintained in relation to each material stores, and these cards show the receipt of each material, its issue and the balance remaining in the Stores date-wise. Besides, weekly statements of the stock position as on the first day of every week are sent from the Stores to the Production Manager and the Production Manager has to give to the Accounts Department and the Managing Director a consumption statement of the raw materials for each month on the basis of the record and statement sent from the Stores and maintained in the Plant.Pillais contention was that the quantity as per the correction in each requisition was supplied by him, that the corrections were made on the basis of instructions for issue of more glue conveyed through the messenger or on the telephone, and that this was the practice prevailing in the factory from the beginning. On the other hand, the appellants case was that Mr. Pillai had tampered with the first two sheets with a view to misappropriate the additional quantity of glue. The third sheet which was in most cases inconsistent with the first two, showed the proper quantity sent to the Plant in fact, and disparities in these sheets established Pillais guilt. On these pleadings, it was necessary for the management to prove that only the quantity originally indented for was supplied, and not the quantity as corrected. To prove this charge, the appellant examined the Production Manager and the Supervisors.8. The Production Manager produced a statement before the Tribunal in order to prove his case against Pillai. This statement purported to show the alleged consumption of glue at the Plant during the months of June, July, August and September, 1961 (Ext. M. 23). If this statement is believed, it would go a long way in proving the appellants case against Pillai. Similarly if the Supervisors oral evidence is accepted at its face value, that also would help the appellants case against Pillai. The Tribunal, however, did not accept the statement produced by the Production Manager and did not believe the Supervisiors oral evidence. That is why it came to then conclusion that "there is absolutely no evidence to connect the employee with the misconduct alleged against him, and I would even state that the evidence in this case points the other way in substantiation of the plea set up by him." The question which arises for our decision is : can the appellant successfully challenge the correctness of this finding in the present appeal ? In our opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative.It is well settled that where dealing with an industrial dispute arising from the dismissal of an industrial employee, the employer fails to prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the domestic enquiry was fair, it is open to him to lead evidence justifying the impugned dismissal; and in such a case, the Tribunal has to consider the evidence for itself and decide whether the dismissal was justified or not. Ordinarily, the decision of such a question depends upon appreciating evidence, both oral and documentary; and in dealing with appeals brought to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution against awards pronounced by Industrial Tribunals in such matters, this Court is reluctant to examine the evidence for itself. Normally the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal as a result of its appreciation of evidence are not disturbed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 136. We see no reason to depart from this usual practice in the present case. 9. The Tribunal has also criticised the appellant for failing to produce log-sheets, the statement prepared on the basis of the log-sheets, and the register regarding the consumption of the glue maintained at the Plant. These documents could have been easily produced, and yet, they were not produced before the Tribunal. Similarly, the Tribunal has commented on the fact that the requisitions for the months of June, July and August, 1961 could have been easily produced before the Tribunal to satisfy it about the position as regards the actual issue and consumption of glue during that period. It is for these reasons that the Tribunal was not prepared to believe the evidence of the Production Manager. 10. Then as to the Supervisors, the Tribunal has commented on the fact that if the appellants case against Pillai was right, then the quantity shown as supplied from the Stores in the third copies is the double of what was originally indented for; and that being so, it was idle for the Supervisors to state that they received only the quantity indented before correction. This comment is justified, because the Supervisors claimed that they invariably checked up the quantity supplied with the third copy. The Tribunal has also referred to some other relevant considerations while discussing the evidence of these Supervisors. Having disbelieved the evidence of the Production Manager and the Supervisors, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that there was any difference between the issue and consumption of glue covered by the requisitions mentioned in the charge-sheet.It is true that the Tribunal was aware that there were certain corrections and over-writings in some of the requisitions in question and that the corrections remained unattested by anybody; but the Tribunal has taken into account the procedure which was followed by the Store-keeper in dealing with these requisitions and has observed that "none of the authorities in the various sections or departments through whose hands these corrections and over-writings have had occasion to pass, has taken it into his head to call for any explanation from the Store-keeper for the corrections or over-writings found therein or to insist that the corrections to be accepted must at least be initialled." In fact, the Tribunal felt constrained to record its conclusion that the whole action against Pillai lacked bona fides, and for this conclusion, the Tribunal has relied mainly upon the impression it formed about the attitude of the Production Manager in this case. That being the position, we do not see how Mr. Pai can successfully challenge the conclusion of the Tribunal that the charge framed against Pillai had not been proved. 11. In regard to the relief of the reinstatement granted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has observed that Pillai has to his credit 12 years of unblemished service under the appellant, and it has referred to the fact that the Production Manager himself had stated that before 1961, he had no occasion to suspect him in regard to the execution of the work entrusted to him as Store-keeper. In fact, his past record shows that Pillai was one of the trusted employees of the appellant. Under these circumstances, we think the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to reinstate Pillai and to give him all his back wages in full from the date of dismissal to the date of his reinstatement.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]We are not impressed by this argument. Since the standing order insists upon notice of three clear days being given to the workman, failure to comply with the standing order does introduce an infirmity in the proceedingsThe Tribunal has stated that Mr. Iyer wanted to assist Pillai, but that he was not allowed to do so. In this connection, the Tribunal has made a significant observation, that it did not think that it should make further comment on this point. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the enquiry contravened the mandatory provision of the relevant Standing Order, and was thus entirely vitiated. That being so, the appellant cannot rely upon the findings recorded at the said enquiry and cannot justify the dismissal of Pillai on the strength of the said findings.That takes us to the merits of the appellants case that Pillai was guilty of misconduct. In dealing with this point, we ought to point out that before the Tribunal, charge No. I was not pressed, and no evidence was adduced in respect of charge No. 3; and that means that the Tribunal was called upon to consider whether the appellant had proved its case against Pillai in regard to charge No. 2In our opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative.It is well settled that where dealing with an industrial dispute arising from the dismissal of an industrial employee, the employer fails to prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the domestic enquiry was fair, it is open to him to lead evidence justifying the impugned dismissal; and in such a case, the Tribunal has to consider the evidence for itself and decide whether the dismissal was justified or not. Ordinarily, the decision of such a question depends upon appreciating evidence, both oral and documentary; and in dealing with appeals brought to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution against awards pronounced by Industrial Tribunals in such matters, this Court is reluctant to examine the evidence for itself. Normally the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal as a result of its appreciation of evidence are not disturbed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 136. We see no reason to depart from this usual practice in the present case10. Then as to the Supervisors, the Tribunal has commented on the fact that if the appellants case against Pillai was right, then the quantity shown as supplied from the Stores in the third copies is the double of what was originally indented for; and that being so, it was idle for the Supervisors to state that they received only the quantity indented before correction. This comment is justified, because the Supervisors claimed that they invariably checked up the quantity supplied with the third copy. The Tribunal has also referred to some other relevant considerations while discussing the evidence of these Supervisors. Having disbelieved the evidence of the Production Manager and the Supervisors, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that there was any difference between the issue and consumption of glue covered by the requisitions mentioned in thet is true that the Tribunal was aware that there were certain corrections ands in some of the requisitions in question and that the corrections remained unattested by anybody; but the Tribunal has taken into account the procedure which was followed by ther in dealing with these requisitions and has observed that "none of the authorities in the various sections or departments through whose hands these corrections ands have had occasion to pass, has taken it into his head to call for any explanation from ther for the corrections or11. In regard to the relief of the reinstatement granted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has observed that Pillai has to his credit 12 years of unblemished service under the appellant, and it has referred to the fact that the Production Manager himself had stated that before 1961, he had no occasion to suspect him in regard to the execution of the work entrusted to him as. In fact, his past record shows that Pillai was one of the trusted employees of the appellant. Under these circumstances, we think the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to reinstate Pillai and to give him all his back wages in full from the date of dismissal to the date of his reinstatement.