Case: Workmen of Assam Match Company Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam and Another

High Court of Assam under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the December 18, 1961. The High Court however, summarily rejected the said application on the December 19, 1961. Thereafter the appellants moved the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court, but the said application was dismissed on the July 4, 1962. The appellants then came to this Court for special leave on the August 24, 1962. The leave was granted to them on the October 3, 1962. The appellants had also applied for special leave to appeal against the award itself on the October 24, 1962. This application was made after considerable delay, and so notice was issued to the respondent to show cause why the said delay should not be condoned. After hearing the parties, the said delay was condoned and special leave was granted on the November 5, 1962. It appears that the respondent had also moved and this application also had been filed after considerable delay. The delay committed by the respondent was, however, not condoned by this Court and its attempt to move this Court by special leave failed. Basing himself on these facts, the learned Solicitor-General contends that it would be inappropriate to direct Dutts reinstatement at this late stage.7. We are not impressed by this argument. As we have repeatedly pointed out, if an employer is shown to have dismissed his employee without justification, and the decision of the dispute resulting from such illegal dismissal takes time, it cannot be urged by the employer that by reason of passage of time, reinstatement should not be ordered. One of the objects which industrial adjudication has to keep in mind is to assure industrial employees security of tenure. There is no doubt that security of tenure for industrial employment tends to create harmonious relations between the employer and the employee, and so this Court has consistently held that in cases of wrongful or illegal dismissal, the normal rule is that the employee who has been illegally or wrongfully dismissed should be reinstated. We are, therefore, satisfied that the contention raised by the Solicitor-General against reinstatement on the ground of passage of time cannot be accepted.8. It is then urged that the Tribunal was justified in taking into account the fact that having regard to what has happened in the present proceedings, it should be held that he respondent has lost confidence in Dutt and that would be a ground for refusing reinstatement to him. This argument is plainly misconceived. We do not think it would be possible to accept the contention that even if an employer is shown to have dismissed his employee wrongfully and without justification, the fact that he has adopted such a course (sic) should be taken into account while determining whether reinstatement should be ordered or not. It would, we think, be unfair to allow an employer in such a case to urge that though the charge framed against his employee was not justified, the fact that a domestic enquiry was held against him on such a charge has led to a loss of confidence in the mind of the employer, and so, the employee should not be reinstated. If this contention were to prevail, the industrial employees who are illegally or unjustifiably dismissed would never get the relief of reinstatement. Cases may conceivably arise where the plea of loss of confidence may and can be entertained, but we have no doubt that the present case does not fall under that category.9. Beside, we cannot overlook the fact that on the findings of the Tribunal, the record of Dutt for 11 years in the employment of the respondent has been without a blemish. Dutt is, therefore, entitled to claim reinstatement with the respondent when he is shown to have served the respondent for 11 long years, and it appears that ordinarily he is entitled to look forward to another long spell of service with the respondent. It is remarkable that though Hussain was similarly charge-sheeted by the respondent and was ordered to be dismissed, on the findings recorded by the Tribunal his reinstatement has been ordered. We see no distinction between the case of Hussain and that of Dutt. The fact that Dutt was a foreman in charge of the motor vehicles of the respondent and Hussain was a driver of one of these vehicles cannot make any difference to the decision of the question with which we are concerned.10. The learned Solicitor-General also attempted to argue that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence led before it by the respondent to show that the charges framed against Dutt were proved. It is true that in the course of its award, the Tribunal has not elaborately referred to the evidence which was led before it. It does appear that apart from the proceedings of the domestic enquiry which were tendered before the Tribunal, evidence was led by both the parties on the merits and the Tribunal has considered the the evidence led at the domestic enquiry as well as the evidence led before it. The discussion of the evidence led before the Tribunal is not very elaborate, but on reading the award, we are satisfied that the Tribunal did take into account the said evidence. Therefore, we do not think the Solicitor-General is justified in contending that the award suffers from the infirmity that the Tribunal completely failed to consider the evidence led before it by the respondent Besides, we cannot overlook the fact that the attempt made by the respondent to move this Court for special leave with a view to challenge the correctness of the finding recorded by the Tribunal has failed inasmuch as the application made by the respondent in that behalf has been dismissed, and so the present appeal must be dealt with on the footing that the finding recorded by the Tribunal, both in regard to the nature of the domestic enquiry and as to the merits of charges framed against Dutt, are correct.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]5. In our opinion, the answer to the question raised by the appellants must unhesitatingly be given in their favour. It isthat where in an industrial dispute arising out of a dismissal of a workman, it is established that the impugned dismissal was unjustified, normal rule is that the dismissed workman should be reinstated. In regard to disciplinary actions which the employers are entitled to take against their employees, the position in law is no longer in doubt. The employer can hold an enquiry against his employee whenever the employer feels that the employee has committed misconduct as a result of which he should be dismissed from service. If the enquiry is properly conducted and the conclusion reached at the enquiry does not appear to be perverse the impugned order of dismissal cannot be successfully challenged before the Tribunal. On the other hand, if the enquiry is not properly conducted or the findings recorded at the said enquiry appear too be perverse in the sense that they are not justified by any evidence whatever, the Industrial Tribunal can examine the question about the alleged misconduct of the employee on evidence which may be adduced before it by the employer and decide whether the employer is entitled to dismiss the employee. These principles have been laid down by this Court in several decisions, and both the parties have argued the present appeal before us on the basis of these principles.We are not impressed by this argument. As we have repeatedly pointed out, if an employer is shown to have dismissed his employee without justification, and the decision of the dispute resulting from such illegal dismissal takes time, it cannot be urged by the employer that by reason of passage of time, reinstatement should not be ordered. One of the objects which industrial adjudication has to keep in mind is to assure industrial employees security of tenure. There is no doubt that security of tenure for industrial employment tends to create harmonious relations between the employer and the employee, and so this Court has consistently held that in cases of wrongful or illegal dismissal, the normal rule is that the employee who has been illegally or wrongfully dismissed should be reinstated. We are, therefore, satisfied that the contention raised by theagainst reinstatement on the ground of passage of time cannot be accepted.8.It is then urged that the Tribunal was justified in taking into account the fact that having regard to what has happened in the present proceedings, it should be held that he respondent has lost confidence in Dutt and that would be a ground for refusing reinstatement to him. This argument is plainly misconceived.We do not think it would be possible to accept the contention that even if an employer is shown to have dismissed his employee wrongfully and without justification, the fact that he has adopted such a course (sic) should be taken into account while determining whether reinstatement should be ordered or not. It would, we think, be unfair to allow an employer in such a case to urge that though the charge framed against his employee was not justified, the fact that a domestic enquiry was held against him on such a charge has led to a loss of confidence in the mind of the employer, and so, the employee should not be reinstated. If this contention were to prevail, the industrial employees who are illegally or unjustifiably dismissed would never get the relief of reinstatement. Cases may conceivably arise where the plea of loss of confidence may and can be entertained, but we have no doubt that the present case does not fall under that category.9. Beside, we cannot overlook the fact that on the findings of the Tribunal, the record of Dutt for 11 years in the employment of the respondent has been without a blemish. Dutt is, therefore, entitled to claim reinstatement with the respondent when he is shown to have served the respondent for 11 long years, and it appears that ordinarily he is entitled to look forward to another long spell of service with the respondent. It is remarkable that though Hussain was similarlyby the respondent and was ordered to be dismissed, on the findings recorded by the Tribunal his reinstatement has been ordered. We see no distinction between the case of Hussain and that of Dutt. The fact that Dutt was a foreman in charge of the motor vehicles of the respondent and Hussain was a driver of one of these vehicles cannot make any difference to the decision of the question with which we are concerned.10. The learnedalso attempted to argue that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence led before it by the respondent to show that the charges framed against Dutt were proved.It is true that in the course of its award, the Tribunal has not elaborately referred to the evidence which was led before it. It does appear that apart from the proceedings of the domestic enquiry which were tendered before the Tribunal, evidence was led by both the parties on the merits and the Tribunal has considered the the evidence led at the domestic enquiry as well as the evidence led before it. The discussion of the evidence led before the Tribunal is not very elaborate, but on reading the award, we are satisfied that the Tribunal did take into account the said evidence. Therefore, we do not think theis justified in contending that the award suffers from the infirmity that the Tribunal completely failed to consider the evidence led before it by the respondent Besides, we cannot overlook the fact that the attempt made by the respondent to move this Court for special leave with a view to challenge the correctness of the finding recorded by the Tribunal has failed inasmuch as the application made by the respondent in that behalf has been dismissed, and so the present appeal must be dealt with on the footing that the finding recorded by the Tribunal, both in regard to the nature of the domestic enquiry and as to the merits of charges framed against Dutt, are correct.