Case: M/s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited Vs. Murari Lal Bikaneria

some members in the managerial cadre and it would not have been at all difficult for the works manager to appoint as enquiry officer some person of the factory itself over whom he was likely to have greater influence than on an outsider. As he himself was going to be a witness in the enquiry he entrusted the appointment of the enquiry officer to the Director of the company. We find nothing unfair in this and are unable to take any exception to the course adopted. 20. The other grounds mentioned by the Tribunal for holding that the enquiry was not a bonafide one appear to be equally unsustainable. The enquiry officer, as already noted, was a lawyer and if he made a report which bore the stamp of a lawyers work it would not be unexpected. The circumstances do not justify the conclusion that he had acted unduly hastily. He started the enquiry on the 9th September and concluded it nearly a month thereafter. He held several sittings. He adjourned the case to 25th September to suit the convenience of Murari Lal whose request for adjournment for a month to the middle of October does not appear to have been based on any genuine ground. He sent for the workmen when they failed to turn up and noted what the messenger deputed to summon them had stated. We have referred in some detail to the correspondence which passed prior to the enquiry merely to show that Murari Lals attitude throughout was to delay the proceedings and to frustrate them if possible. His excuse for not appearing in the proceedings was frivolous. He purposely delayed giving his reply to the charges and raised all sorts of frivolous objections from time to time to hold up the enquiry. Moreover the delay in the holding of the enquiry, if any, was not made a ground of complaint by Murari Lal and the Tribunals comment in regard thereto appears to be unjustified. 21. We do not accept the view of the Tribunal that the works manager did not apply his mind to the facts before ordering dismissal of the workmen and that he was simply following the suggestion of "the approved authorities". The order passed by the mere fact that he had referred to the opinion of others in some of the orders did not exclude his having formed an opinion of his own and when his own view was the same as that of the director no exception could be taken to the fact that he had also referred to such opinion. 22. In Saran Motors v. Vishwanath and another [1964 - II L.L.J. 139] this Court rejected the objection as to bias of the enquiry officer upheld by the Tribunal on the ground that the enquiry officer had at times been engaged by the appellant as a lawyer in industrial matters and had been entrusted with the work of holding enquiries on some previous occasions observing that the mere fact of a persons occasional employer did not render him incompetent to hold a domestic enquiry. 23. In our view there was sufficient evidence before the enquiry officer to come to the conclusion arrived at by him. Banwari Lal admitted that he had blown the whistle at the instance of Murari Lal leading to the stoppage of work in the factory. Such an act of indiscipline of the part of a worker could hardly be expected to be tolerated by any employer who attaches any value to discipline in his factory whatever be the reason for the demand for cessation of work. The more so, because Murari Lal was then under orders of suspension and was not supposed to enter the factory premises. Leaving out of account the second and the third charges which were not pressed before the Tribunal, there was ample evidence before the enquiry officer to arrive at the conclusion hi did. There was certainly a prima facie case established by the employer which could be controverted by Murari Lal adducing evidence to the contrary.24. It was argued before us that the Tribunals finding ought to be upset in view of the fact that Murari Lal had been in service of the appellant for 27 years without any blemish on his record and that the incidents of 27th and 28th May, 1964, even if proved, were not of such a grave nature as called for dismissal and the management might have overlooked the fault, if any, committed by Murari Lal. In the evidence before the Tribunal, Murari Lal had stated that some charge-sheets had been issued to him during the years 1947-50 and also thereafter and that he could produce the charge-sheets if given an opportunity to do so. He could not however state the nature of the charges contained therein. Counsel for the appellant appears to have state that the management had never issued charge sheets to the respondent except on two occasions to which the dispute related and wanted Murari Lal to produce any charge-sheets particularly any after 1960. From the record of the case it is not possible to come to any conclusion whether any charge-sheets had in fact been issued to the respondent before 1964. We cannot hold that the issue of four charge sheets in the year 1964 between 4th June and early in October was evidence of motive to victimise. The charge regarding the incidents of 27th and 28th of May was sufficiently serious for the management to have proceeded in the way it did not merely because the respondent admitted that he had himself made the amendment to his leave application it cannot be said that the appellant should not have pressed that charge. It was said that for an incident like this no greater punishment than with holding of a days pay was called for. There would have been much to be said in favour of the workman if that was the only charge on which he was being proceeded against.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]19. We find ourselves unable to accept the conclusionsd atby the Tribunal. The Tribunal seems to have been greatly impressed by the fact that instead of appointing someone in the appellants factory itself as the enquiry officer the works manager had brought in an outsider who was no other than a junior advocate occasionally assisting Anand Prakash, their counsel, in some matters. The Tribunals view that this was wholly unwarranted and done with the purpose of loading the dice against the workmen appears to be unreasonable. Merely because the enquiry officer was a junior advocate and that he had on occasions been engaged by the appellant, it is not possible to take the view that he would necessarily be biased against the workmen. Evidently some of the workmen had behaved rudely to some members in the managerial cadre and it would not have been at all difficult for the works manager to appoint as enquiry officer some person of the factory itself over whom he was likely to have greater influence than on an outsider. As he himself was going to be a witness in the enquiry he entrusted the appointment of the enquiry officer to the Director of the company. We find nothing unfair in this and are unable to take any exception to the course adopted20. The other grounds mentioned by the Tribunal for holding that the enquiry was not a bonafide one appear to be equally unsustainable. The enquiry officer, as already noted, was a lawyer and if he made a report which bore the stamp of a lawyers work it would not be unexpected. The circumstances do not justify the conclusion that he had acted unduly hastily. He started the enquiry on the 9th September and concluded it nearly a month thereafter. He held several sittings. He adjourned the case to 25th September to suit the convenience of Murari Lal whose request for adjournment for a month to the middle of October does not appear to have been based on any genuine ground. He sent for the workmen when they failed to turn up and noted what the messenger deputed to summon them had stated. We have referred in some detail to the correspondence which passed prior to the enquiry merely to show that Murari Lals attitude throughout was to delay the proceedings and to frustrate them if possible. His excuse for not appearing in the proceedings was frivolous. He purposely delayed giving his reply to the charges and raised all sorts of frivolous objections from time to time to hold up the enquiry. Moreover the delay in the holding of the enquiry, if any, was not made a ground of complaint by Murari Lal and the Tribunals comment in regard thereto appears to be unjustified21. We do not accept the view of the Tribunal that the works manager did not apply his mind to the facts before ordering dismissal of the workmen and that he was simply following the suggestion of "the approved authorities". The order passed by the mere fact that he had referred to the opinion of others in some of the orders did not exclude his having formed an opinion of his own and when his own view was the same as that of the director no exception could be taken to the fact that he had also referred to such opinion23. In our view there was sufficient evidence before the enquiry officer to come to the conclusiond atby him. Banwari Lal admitted that he had blown the whistle at the instance of Murari Lal leading to the stoppage of work in the factory. Such an act of indiscipline of the part of a worker could hardly be expected to be tolerated by any employer who attaches any value to discipline in his factory whatever be the reason for the demand for cessation of work. The more so, because Murari Lal was then under orders of suspension and was not supposed to enter the factory premises. Leaving out of account the second and the third charges which were not pressed before the Tribunal, there was ample evidence before the enquiry officer to arrive at the conclusion hi did. There was certainly a prima facie case established by the employer which could be controverted by Murari Lal adducing evidence to the contrary.In the evidence before the Tribunal, Murari Lal had stated that somes had been issued to him during the years0 and also thereafter and that he could produce thes if given an opportunity to do so. He could not however state the nature of the charges contained therein. Counsel for the appellant appears to have state that the management had never issued charge sheets to the respondent except on two occasions to which the dispute related and wanted Murari Lal to produce anys particularly any after 1960. From the record of the case it is not possible to come to any conclusion whether anys had in fact been issued to the respondent before 1964. We cannot hold that the issue of four charge sheets in the year 1964 between 4th June and early in October was evidence of motive to victimise. The charge regarding the incidents of 27th and 28th of May was sufficiently serious for the management to have proceeded in the way it did not merely because the respondent admitted that he had himself made the amendment to his leave application it cannot be said that the appellant should not have pressed that charge. It was said that for an incident like this no greater punishment than with holding of a days pay was called for. There would have been much to be said in favour of the workman if that was the only charge on which he was being proceeded against