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

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 (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
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.