Case: Burn and Company Limited Vs. Workman and Another

and that he had falsely implicated Mukherjee of the charge that Mukherjee had thrashed him.According to clause 14(b) of the standing orders of the company, wilful disobedience or insubordination and interference with the work of other employees were to be regarded as major misdemeanours. The said clause of the standing orders provided :"A worker may be dismissed without notice or compensation in lieu of notice if he is found to be guilty of a major misdemeanourIn awarding punishment under this standing order, the manager shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the workman and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist ........"Before the labour court a story of victimisation of the workers had been put forward. The court held that it was totally without any merit as also that "the incidents as alleged by Shri Mukherjee in Ext. A/1 give the correct version as to what exactly had happened and that the findings of the board as recorded in Ex. E seem to be quite clear."The court observed that :"I would have at once answered the reference against the workman but rather serious question of law arises as to the propriety of the order of dismissal in view of the charge No. 2 for alleged interference with the work of other employees .........."3. According to the court, is was not the business of the members of the staff to carry tea from the canteen for Mukherjee and although Prabhunath had no business to ask Hari not to bring tea for him, this act did not constitute interference with Haris work as the latter was not engaged in any lawful duty. In this view of the matter, the court found it difficult to uphold the order of removal from service because it was not clear to what extent the order "was passed on the ground or grounds found bad".4. In our view, the labour court usurped the functions of an appellate court from the order of the board of enquiry. The board had recorded that the work of bringing tea had always been done by the workers. There was nothing unlawful about this work if the workman concerned was inclined to do it, as it had usually been done by other workers, and the conduct of Prabhunath in asking Hari not to do it was nothing short of interference with his work. All that the labour court had jurisdiction to see was whether the board of enquiry had observed the rules of natural justice and conduced the enquiry in a manner to which no exception could be taken. If these conditions were fulfilled and if the standing orders of the company entitled the board to pass an order of removal from service in case of a major misdemeanour, It was not within the jurisdiction of the labour court to order reinstatement of the worker. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [1963 - Supp. I S.C.R. 648]. In this case the respondent - an employee of the State of Orissa, was charged with having received illegal gratification on several occasions and being in possession of property disproportionate to his income. The Governor referred his case to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under Sec. 4(1) of the Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunal) Rules framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution. The Tribunal found four out of the five heads under the first charge and the second charge proved and recommended the; dismissal of the employee. The Governor after giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed punishment, dismissed him. The High Court held inter alia that the second charge and only two and heads of the first charge could be maintained and directed the Governor to reconsider whether on the basis of these charges the punishment of dismissal could be maintained. It was observed by this Court that :"If the order of dismissal was based on the findings on charges i(a) and i(e) alone the Court would have jurisdiction to declare the order of dismissal illegal but when the findings of the Tribunal relating to the two out of five heads of the first charge and the second charge was found not liable to be interfered with by the High Court and those findings established that the respondent was prima facie guilty of grave delinquency, in our view the High Court had no power to direct the Governor to reconsider the Governor to reconsider the order of dismissal."5. In the instant case, the labour court found no fault with the finding of the board of enquiry on the first charge which by itself, according to the standing orders, might be visited with an order of dismissal from service. As we have already pointed out that it was not for the labour court to sit in appeal over the board of enquiry with regard to the second charge, and even if the second charge had not been proved, the order of dismissal was good on the basis of the first charge.6. The labour court also went into the question as to whether the previous record of the workman and the extenuating circumstances had been considered by the board of enquiry. According to the court, the incident of 16th November, 1965 "was perhaps not so serious as to dismiss an employee." As noticed before, the workman had been in employment of this company for a period of four months only and therefore there could be no question of the consideration of his past record. Nor was there any extenuating circumstances. At any rate, it was not for the labour court to order reinstatement when the board of enquiry had found him guilty of two acts of major misdemeanour rendering him liable to dismissal. The enquiry did not offend any principle of natural justice and the labour court fell into an error in exercising appellate powers by coming to different conclusion.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]4. In our view, the labour court usurped the functions of an appellate court from the order of the board of enquiry. The board had recorded that the work of bringing tea had always been done by the workers. There was nothing unlawful about this work if the workman concerned was inclined to do it, as it had usually been done by other workers, and the conduct of Prabhunath in asking Hari not to do it was nothing short of interference with his work. All that the labour court had jurisdiction to see was whether the board of enquiry had observed the rules of natural justice and conduced the enquiry in a manner to which no exception could be taken. If these conditions were fulfilled and if the standing orders of the company entitled the board to pass an order of removal from service in case of a major misdemeanour, It was not within the jurisdiction of the labour court to order reinstatement of the worker. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [1963Supp. I S.C.R. 648].In the instant case, the labour court found no fault with the finding of the board of enquiry on the first charge which by itself, according to the standing orders, might be visited with an order of dismissal from service. As we have already pointed out that it was not for the labour court to sit in appeal over the board of enquiry with regard to the second charge, and even if the second charge had not been proved, the order of dismissal was good on the basis of the first charge.6. The labour court also went into the question as to whether the previous record of the workman and the extenuating circumstances had been considered by the board of enquiry. According to the court, the incident of 16th November, 1965 "was perhaps not so serious as to dismiss an employee." As noticed before, the workman had been in employment of this company for a period of four months only and therefore there could be no question of the consideration of his past record. Nor was there any extenuating circumstances. At any rate, it was not for the labour court to order reinstatement when the board of enquiry had found him guilty of two acts of major misdemeanour rendering him liable to dismissal. The enquiry did not offend any principle of natural justice and the labour court fell into an error in exercising appellate powers by coming to different conclusion.