Case: Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Vs. Munnu Barrick and Ors

appeared for the respondents despite service of notice. 13. Domestic enquiry in an industrial establishment is governed by the Standing Orders applicable thereto. The employer, if it is a government company, or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act can also frame its rules and regulations governing the conditions of service of its employees, domestic enquiry is required to be conducted in terms of such rules and regulations. 14. From a perusal of the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, it does not appear that the workmen had raised any contention as regards violation of any mandatory provision of such rules laying down the procedure for conducting departmental proceedings. Indisputably, however, the principles of natural justice in such a proceeding are required to be complied with. 15. In law, the concerned workmen do not enjoy any status as they are not the employees of Union of India and furthermore, their conditions of service, were not governed by any rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution. Services of the workmen were also not protected under Article 311 thereof. It has been contended before us that in terms of the extant rules governing the conditions of service of the workmen, a departmental appeal was maintainable against an order of the Disciplinary Authority. Presumably, such a remedy was provided with a view to enable the workmen to prefer an effective departmental appeal and only in that view of the matter, a copy of the enquiry report was supplied by the Appellant along with the order of the dismissal. 16. The workmen evidently did not avail the benefit of filing any departmental appeal. In such an appeal they could have shown as to how and in what manner and to what extent they were prejudiced by non-supply of a copy of the enquiry report. Had the workmen filed such an appeal, they could have furthermore demonstrated before the Appellate Authority that in terms of the rules and regulations governing their conditions of service, they were, as a matter of right, entitled to a copy of the enquiry report before an order of punishment is imposed upon them. 17. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula. It must be viewed with flexibility. In a given case, where a deviation takes place as regard compliance of the principles of natural justice, the Court may insist upon proof of prejudice before setting aside the order impugned before it, (See Bar Council of India vs. High Court of Kerala, (2004) 6 SCC 311 ). 18. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, as noticed hereinbefore, committed a manifest error in invoking Article 311 of the Constitution of India in the instant case. 19. In Karunakar (supra), this Court has clearly held that the employee must show sufferance of prejudice by non-obtaining a copy of the enquiry report. 20. This Court in Canara Bank (supra) while following Karunakar (supra) held: "19. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The expression civil consequences encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations, and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life." 21. Referring to a large number of decisions, it was observed that a court will refrain from interfering with an order, having regard to useless formality theory, in a given case. It was opined: "27. It is to be noted that at no stage the employee pleaded prejudice. Both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench proceeded on the basis that there was no compliance of the requirement of Regulation 6(18) and, therefore, prejudice was caused. In view of the finding recorded supra that Regulation 6(18) has not been correctly interpreted, the conclusions regarding prejudice are indefensible." 22. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, therefore, in our opinion, seriously erred in not considering the matter from the aforementioned angle. Furthermore, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant herein, the court should have given an opportunity to complete the disciplinary proceeding from the stage of supplying a copy of the enquiry report to the workmen so as to enable them to raise a contention as regard correctness of the findings of the Inquiry Officer contained in the report as also on the quantum of punishment proposed to be imposed by the Appellant while issuing a second show cause notice. 23. In a case of this nature where serious questions of law were raised by the Appellant, in our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court should have taken a liberal view on the application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant wherefor the Respondents workmen could have been adequately compensated on monetary terms. 24. Ordinarily, we have remitted the matter back to the Division Bench for consideration of the matter on merit but as we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as the Presiding Officer, Labour Court have seriously erred in passing the impugned award and judgments, with a view to do complete justice to the parties we are of the view that all the impugned judgments and orders should be set aside and the matter remitted to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court for consideration of the matter afresh.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]14. From a perusal of the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, it does not appear that the workmen had raised any contention as regards violation of any mandatory provision of such rules laying down the procedure for conducting departmental proceedings. Indisputably, however, the principles of natural justice in such a proceeding are required to be complied with15. In law, the concerned workmen do not enjoy any status as they are not the employees of Union of India and furthermore, their conditions of service, were not governed by any rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution. Services of the workmen were also not protected under Article 311 thereof. It has been contended before us that in terms of the extant rules governing the conditions of service of the workmen, a departmental appeal was maintainable against an order of the Disciplinary Authority. Presumably, such a remedy was provided with a view to enable the workmen to prefer an effective departmental appeal and only in that view of the matter, a copy of the enquiry report was supplied by the Appellant along with the order of the dismissal16. The workmen evidently did not avail the benefit of filing any departmental appeal. In such an appeal they could have shown as to how and in what manner and to what extent they were prejudiced by non-supply of a copy of the enquiry report. Had the workmen filed such an appeal, they could have furthermore demonstrated before the Appellate Authority that in terms of the rules and regulations governing their conditions of service, they were, as a matter of right, entitled to a copy of the enquiry report before an order of punishment is imposed upon them. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula. It must be viewed with flexibility. In a given case, where a deviation takes place as regard compliance of the principles of natural justice, the Court may insist upon proof of prejudice before setting aside the order impugned before it, (See Bar Council of India vs. High Court of Kerala, (2004) 6 SCC 311 )18. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, as noticed hereinbefore, committed a manifest error in invoking Article 311 of the Constitution of India in the instant case22. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, therefore, in our opinion, seriously erred in not considering the matter from the aforementioned angle. Furthermore, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant herein, the court should have given an opportunity to complete the disciplinary proceeding from the stage of supplying a copy of the enquiry report to the workmen so as to enable them to raise a contention as regard correctness of the findings of the Inquiry Officer contained in the report as also on the quantum of punishment proposed to be imposed by the Appellant while issuing a second show cause notice23. In a case of this nature where serious questions of law were raised by the Appellant, in our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court should have taken a liberal view on the application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellant wherefor the Respondents workmen could have been adequately compensated on monetary terms24. Ordinarily, we have remitted the matter back to the Division Bench for consideration of the matter on merit but as we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as the Presiding Officer, Labour Court have seriously erred in passing the impugned award and judgments, with a view to do complete justice to the parties we are of the view that all the impugned judgments and orders should be set aside and the matter remitted to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court for consideration of the matter afresh.