Case: Powari Tea Estate Vs. Barkataki (M. K.) and Others

denied all the three items of the charge and added that he had nothing to do with the J. forms, because it was not his duty to deal with those forms. He contended that since notice after notice was being served on him it appeared that the appellant was determined to victimize him, and he requested that the order of suspension passed against him should be withdrawn.Sir Allison then an enquiry against Gohain. At this enquiry, Jagannath Tanti stated that Gohain had taken Rs. 15 from him in order to allow his wife to work on the tea garden, and he added that Chabi Tanti and Chaitto Tanti had witnessed the said payment. Chabi Tanti supported Jagannath Tantis evidence, but Chaitto Tanti did not. Gohain denied the charge. The how the evidence adduced in this case stands.6. Thereafter on June 19, 1957, Sir Allison served an order of dismissal on Gohain in which he stated that at the enquiry held against Gohain on June 15, 1957, he had been found guilty of illegally taking money from labourers. This order of dismissal was passed under S. 10(a)(3) of the standing order. It is this dismissal which is the subject matter of the present appeal. Sri Setalvad contends that in coming to the conclusion that the dismissal of Gohain was not justified, the labour court has, in substance, reappreciated the evidence led at the domestic enquiry as well as the evidence led before it, and that, he argues, was beyond the jurisdiction of the labour court. The we do enquiry in this case has been properly conducted. Gohain was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him, and the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charges had been proved. In such a case says Sri Setalvad, the labour court cannot sit in judgment over the propriety or correctness of the findings recorded at the enquiry, and inasmuch as the labour court has purported to reappreciate the evidence, it has acted without jurisdiction.7. Prima facie, there is substance in the contention raised by Sri Setalvad. The true legal position about the jurisdiction and powers of the industrial tribunal or the labour court dealing with disputes arising from dismissal of industrial employees, is no longer in doubt; and if the decision reached by the labour court not have been sustained on the ground to which we will presently refer, the criticism made by Sri Setalvad would have justified our interference with the order passed by the labour court. But it appears from the record that the decision reached by the labour court can be justified on another ground to which the labour court has not referred, but which is patent on the record.It is clear that Sri Allison held the enquiry on June 15, 1957, he did not make any report at all all; that he did was to issue the order of dismissal on June 19, 1957. In other words, the enquiry officer held the enquiry and straightway proceeded to issue an order of dismissal.8. We have repeatedly held that though domestic enquiries held by employers in dealing with cases of misconduct alleged against their employees need not conform to all the requirements of judicial proceeding, they must satisfy the essential requirements of natural justice; and since industrial adjudication attaches considerable importance to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer holding a domestic enquiry in such cases, it is essential that the officer should make a brief report indicating clearly his conclusion and reasons in support of it. It is, of course, not necessary that the report should be elaborate; but however brief it is, it should indicate in a broad way the conclusion of the officer and his reason : otherwise, when the legality or propriety of the dismissal which follows such a report, is put in issue before an industrial tribunal or a labour court, it would be impossible for the tribunal or the court to consider whether the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer was perverse or not. Judicial have established the proposition that if the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer in a domestic enquiry is shown to be perverse in the strict legal sense, that would justify industrial adjudication to examine the merits of the dispute between the parties for itself.9. Now how can industrial adjudication deal with the merits of the respondents argument in the present case that the order of dismissal is illegal unless it is possible to ascertain what the enquiry officer decided after the enquiry was held? It is necessary to emphasize that domestic enquiries held against industrial employees must conform to the basic requirement of natural justice, and one of the essential requests of a proceeding of this character is that when the enquiry is over, the officer must consider the evidence and record his conclusions and reasons therefor. The fact that the officer who holds the enquiry against a delinquent employee is competent to dismiss him, cannot possibly help to dispense with the making of the report. The report is a document which will have to be closely examined by the industrial tribunal when a dispute, such as the present, is brought before is for its adjudication. This question has been considered by this court in Khardah & Co., Ltd. v. Its workmen [1963 - II L.L.J. 452] as well as in Balipara Tea Estate, Lokra Assam v. Gopal Chandra Goswami [Civil Appeal No. 827 of 1962 dated 11 November, 1963]. In view of the fact that no report has been made by Sri Allison in the present case, it was competent to the labour court to consider the evidence for itself. It is true that the labour court has not referred to this aspect of the matter; but as we have already indicated, the infirmity in question is patent on the record and so, it is not open to Sri Setalvad to challenge successfully the court adopted by the Labour Court in dealing with the evidence for itself.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]4. This charge, no doubt, is not happily worded and the expressions used in it would seem to indicate that Sri Allison had already made up his mind that Gohain was guilty of the misconduct set out in the charge. In the circumstances of this case, however, we do not propose to base our decision on this infirmity in the charge. We will assume that the charge merely intended say that Sri Allison was prima facie satisfied that a case for enquiry had been made out against Gohain. We would only like to emphasize that such incautious and loose language in the charge ought to be avoided, because it is likely to create an apprehension in the mind of the employee chargesheet that the person issuing the charge has already decided the case against him.Prima facie, there is substance in the contention raised by Sri Setalvad. The true legal position about the jurisdiction and powers of the industrial tribunal or the labour court dealing with disputes arising from dismissal of industrial employees, is no longer in doubt; and if the decision reached by the labour court not have been sustained on the ground to which we will presently refer, the criticism made by Sri Setalvad would have justified our interference with the order passed by the labour court. But it appears from the record that the decision reached by the labour court can be justified on another ground to which the labour court has not referred, but which is patent on the record.It is clear that Sri Allison held the enquiry on June 15, 1957, he did not make any report at all all; that he did was to issue the order of dismissal on June 19, 1957. In other words, the enquiry officer held the enquiry and straightway proceeded to issue an order of dismissal.8. We have repeatedly held that though domestic enquiries held by employers in dealing with cases of misconduct alleged against their employees need not conform to all the requirements of judicial proceeding, they must satisfy the essential requirements of natural justice; and since industrial adjudication attaches considerable importance to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer holding a domestic enquiry in such cases, it is essential that the officer should make a brief report indicating clearly his conclusion and reasons in support of it. It is, of course, not necessary that the report should be elaborate; but however brief it is, it should indicate in a broad way the conclusion of the officer and his reason : otherwise, when the legality or propriety of the dismissal which follows such a report, is put in issue before an industrial tribunal or a labour court, it would be impossible for the tribunal or the court to consider whether the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer was perverse or not. Judicial have established the proposition that if the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer in a domestic enquiry is shown to be perverse in the strict legal sense, that would justify industrial adjudication to examine the merits of the dispute between the parties foris necessary to emphasize that domestic enquiries held against industrial employees must conform to the basic requirement of natural justice, and one of the essential requests of a proceeding of this character is that when the enquiry is over, the officer must consider the evidence and record his conclusions and reasons therefor. The fact that the officer who holds the enquiry against a delinquent employee is competent to dismiss him, cannot possibly help to dispense with the making of the report. The report is a document which will have to be closely examined by the industrial tribunal when a dispute, such as the present, is brought before is for its adjudication. This question has been considered by this court in Khardah & Co., Ltd. v. Its workmen [1963II L.L.J. 452] as well as in Balipara Tea Estate, Lokra Assam v. Gopal Chandra Goswami [Civil Appeal No. 827 of 1962 dated 11 November, 1963]. In view of the fact that no report has been made by Sri Allison in the present case, it was competent to the labour court to consider the evidence for itself. It is true that the labour court has not referred to this aspect of the matter; but as we have already indicated, the infirmity in question is patent on the record and so, it is not open to Sri Setalvad to challenge successfully the court adopted by the Labour Court in dealing with the evidence for itself.