Case: Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Company, Ltd Vs. Workmen Of Nahortoli Tea Estate

Tribunal has pointed out, the industrial tribunal has undoubtedly relied on evidence which was neither given in the managerial inquiry nor before it. That was undoubtedly an error of law of a substantial nature which would vitiate the award of the industrial tribunal. In the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal would be justified in going into the evidence and deciding for itself whether after excluding the inadmissible evidence on which the industrial tribunal had relied there was sufficient material to justify its finding. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was a substantial question of law involved in this case which entitled it to hear the appeal. Re. (2):- There is no doubt that the principles laid down in Indian Iron and Steel Company case [1958- I L.L.J. 269] (supra) had not been followed by the tribunals in this case. But we are of opinion . that on the facts of this case, those principles have no application. The incident out of which the present proceedings have arisen took place on 13 December. It seems that some kind of preliminary inquiry was made by the management with which Dhaneswar had nothing to do. Thereafter he was suspended on 15 December and a charge-sheet was given to him and his explanation was called for. A second charge-sheet was given to him on 17 December, and the managerial inquiry was fixed for 18 December, in the presence of Dhaneswar. All that happened at that inquiry was that Dhaneswars statement was taken before even any evidence was led on behalf of the management. It seems that some disputes took place between Dhaneswar and the management at the time his statement was being taken and Dhaneswar refused to sign his statement on the ground that it was not correctly taken down. Be that as it may, it does not appear that any evidence was recorded in the managerial inquiry either before that statement was taken down or afterwards to prove the charge against Dhaneswar. Further, there is nothing to show that Dhaneswar had refused to take part in the managerial inquiry after the dispute as to his refusal to sign the statement. In these circumstances, there was in fact no managerial inquiry worth the name in this case. This is what the Appellate Tribunal has also pointed out, and we think rightly. This is also borne out by the fact that before the industrial tribunal the appellant examined a number of witnesses which would have been unnecessary if there had been a proper managerial inquiry. It seems from this fact that it was practically accepted before the industrial tribunal that there was no proper managerial inquiry and it was left to the industrial tribunal to decide for itself whether the dismissal of Dhaneswar was justified. In these circumstances, there was no scope for the application of the principles laid down in Indian Iron and Steel Company case [ (1957) F. J. R. 377] which applies only where a proper managerial inquiry has been held. This contention must therefore be negatived. Re. (3): - We have already set out the final order of the Appellate Tribunal by which it allowed two kinds of compensation- retrenchment compensation as also compensation for unjustified and premature termination of employment. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in allowing double compensation in this manner. It is not disputed that where a workman is entitled to reinstatement but for some reason the tribunal does not consider it proper to give that relief, compensation is awarded to such workman in lieu of that relief. There is, however, no scope for allowing retrenchment compensation in a case of this kind, for there is no question of any retrenchment as such where the tribunal decides not to pass an order of reinstatement but to give compensation instead. Strictly speaking, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in giving retrenchment compensation as well as compensation for unjustified and premature termination of employment. What it could and should have given was compensation only for unjustified and premature termination of employment. In effect, however, the order of the Appellate Tribunal works out to giving one months average pay for each year of completed service for unjustified and premature termination of employment in this case. We feel that though the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in splitting up the compensation in two parts as it did, there would have been no reason for interfering with its order if it had given compensation for unjustified and premature termination of employment at the rate of one months average pay per completed year of service. Now, in a case of proper retrenchment law allows compensation at the rate of fifteen days average pay for each completed year of service; it stands to reason that where a workman loses his job on account of unjustified and premature termination of employment, he should get something more than what he would have got as compensation if it was a proper case of retrenchment. In such a case we do not think that the award of one months average pay for each completed year of service would be an excessive compensation for unjustified and premature termination of employment. Therefore, though the order of the Appellate Tribunal may not be quite correct in form and though some of the words used in the last part of the decision seem to suggest that the Appellate Tribunal was punishing the appellant which it should not and could not do, the order as a whole giving one months average pay for each completed year of service as compensation does not seem to us unreasonable or unjust. In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere.( 5. ) So far as Dhaneswars wife is concerned, she was dismissed because her husband was dismissed and for no other reason. In the circumstances, the order of the Appellate Tribunal with respect to her also must be upheld.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]( 4. ) Three points have been urged before us on behalf of the appellant, namelyal had no jurisdiction to interfere as there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal before it; (2) the Appellate Tribunals decision is vitiated by the fact that it did not keep in mind the principles laid down in Indian Iron and Steel Company, Ltd. v. their Workmen (1958 I. L.L.J. 260.= 13 F.J.R. 377), as to the extent of the tribunals jurisdiction to interfere with an order passed in a managerial inquiry; and (3) in any case, the Appellate Tribunal has awarded double compensation to Dhaneswar and his wife, which it could not havedone." Re. (1):We are of opinion that there is no force in this contention. As the Appellate Tribunal has pointed out, the industrial tribunal has undoubtedly relied on evidence which was neither given in the managerial inquiry nor before it. That was undoubtedly an error of law of a substantial nature which would vitiate the award of the industrial tribunal. In the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal would be justified in going into the evidence and deciding for itself whether after excluding the inadmissible evidence on which the industrial tribunal had relied there was sufficient material to justify its finding. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was a substantial question of law involved in this case which entitled it to hear the appeal. Re. (2):There is no doubt that the principles laid down in Indian Iron and Steel Company case [1958I L.L.J. 269] (supra) had not been followed by the tribunals in this case. But we are of opinion . that on the facts of this case, those principles have no application. The incident out of which the present proceedings have arisen took place on 13 December. It seems that some kind of preliminary inquiry was made by the management with which Dhaneswar had nothing to do. Thereafter he was suspended on 15 December and awas given to him and his explanation was called for. A secondwas given to him on 17 December, and the managerial inquiry was fixed for 18 December, in the presence of Dhaneswar. All that happened at that inquiry was that Dhaneswars statement was taken before even any evidence was led on behalf of the management. It seems that some disputes took place between Dhaneswar and the management at the time his statement was being taken and Dhaneswar refused to sign his statement on the ground that it was not correctly taken down. Be that as it may, it does not appear that any evidence was recorded in the managerial inquiry either before that statement was taken down or afterwards to prove the charge against Dhaneswar. Further, there is nothing to show that Dhaneswar had refused to take part in the managerial inquiry after the dispute as to his refusal to sign the statement. In these circumstances, there was in fact no managerial inquiry worth the name in this case. This is what the Appellate Tribunal has also pointed out, and we think rightly. This is also borne out by the fact that before the industrial tribunal the appellant examined a number of witnesses which would have been unnecessary if there had been a proper managerial inquiry. It seems from this fact that it was practically accepted before the industrial tribunal that there was no proper managerial inquiry and it was left to the industrial tribunal to decide for itself whether the dismissal of Dhaneswar was justified. In these circumstances, there was no scope for the application of the principles laid down in Indian Iron and Steel Company case [ (1957) F. J. R. 377] which applies only where a proper managerial inquiry has been held. This contention must therefore be negatived. Re. (3):We have already set out the final order of the Appellate Tribunal by which it allowed two kinds of compensationretrenchment compensation as also compensation for unjustified and premature termination ofis not disputed that where a workman is entitled to reinstatement but for some reason the tribunal does not consider it proper to give that relief, compensation is awarded to such workman in lieu of that relief. There is, however, no scope for allowing retrenchment compensation in a case of this kind, for there is no question of any retrenchment as such where the tribunal decides not to pass an order of reinstatement but to give compensation instead. Strictly speaking, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in giving retrenchment compensation as well as compensation for unjustified and premature termination of employment. What it could and should have given was compensation only for unjustified and premature termination of employment. In effect, however, the order of the Appellate Tribunal works out to giving one months average pay for each year of completed service for unjustified and premature termination of employment in this case. We feel that though the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in splitting up the compensation in two parts as it did, there would have been no reason for interfering with its order if it had given compensation for unjustified and premature termination of employment at the rate of one months average pay per completed year of service. Now, in a case of proper retrenchment law allows compensation at the rate of fifteen days average pay for each completed year of service; it stands to reason that where a workman loses his job on account of unjustified and premature termination of employment, he should get something more than what he would have got as compensation if it was a proper case of retrenchment. In such a case we do not think that the award of one months average pay for each completed year of service would be an excessive compensation for unjustified and premature termination of employment. Therefore, though the order of the Appellate Tribunal may not be quite correct in form and though some of the words used in the last part of the decision seem to suggest that the Appellate Tribunal was punishing the appellant which it should not and could not do, the order as a whole giving one months average pay for each completed year of service as compensation does not seem to us unreasonable or unjust. In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere.( 5. ) So far as Dhaneswars wife is concerned, she was dismissed because her husband was dismissed and for no other reason. In the circumstances, the order of the Appellate Tribunal with respect to her also must be upheld.