Case: Management Of M/S M.S. Nally Bharatengg. Co. Ltd Vs. State Of Bihar &amp; Ors

3. The facts can be quite shortly stated : The appellant-company is mainly engaged in construction of coal washeries on contract basis indifferent collieries and also doing allied and incidental work. Shivaji Prasad Sinha - respondent 4 was a Senior Supervisor in the companys establishment at Dhanbad. It is said that he was caught red-handed when carrying 55 pieces of electromagnetic clutch plates kept concealed in the tool box of his scooter. The management held domestic enquiry into the incident and found him guilty of committing theft. He was accordingly dismissed from services. The dispute arising therefrom was referred under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act to Labour Court, Dhanbad for adjudication. The Labour Court registered the case as Reference case No. 4 of 1988 and issued notice to the parties. The parties entered appearance and filed their respective pleadings. When the matter was thus pending consideration the respondent seems to have written to the Government stating that it would be difficult for him to attend the Labour Court, Dhanbad since he has been residing at Hajipur and it would be convenient for him if the case is transferred to Labour Court, Patna. That application was made without intimation to the management. The government, however, has acceded to the request of the respondent and without opportunity to the management transferred the case to Labour Court, Patna. The Notification issued in that regard reads asPatna dated August 8, 1988S.O. In exercise of powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 33-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Governor of Bihar after careful consideration of the application of the petitioner Shri Shivaji Prasad Sinha wherein he has prayed for the transfer of a adjudication proceedings to Patna keeping in view to the difficulties expressed by him to attend the Labour Court, Dhanbad regularly due to his residence at Majipur is pleased to withdraw the proceeding shown in Annexure A pending before Labour Court, Dhanbad and transfer the said proceeding to the Labour Court, Patna for speedy disposal from the stage at which the case is transferred.The management moved the High Court by way of writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to have the Notification quashed. The High Court did not agree summarily dismissed the writ Petition with anno Prejudice is being caused to the Petitioner and no allegation of mala fide has been made against the Presiding Officer, Patna, we are not inclined to interfere with order under challengeThis application is dismissed.The management in the appeal challenges the government notification withdrawing and transferring the pending case from the Labour Court, Dhanbad to Labour Court,

Reasoning: 20. We share the view expressed by Professor Jackson. Fairness, in our opinion, is a fundamental principle of good administration. It is a rule to ensure that the vast power in the modern State is not abused but properly exercised. Theis used for proper and not for improper purposes. The authority is not misguided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. Fairness is also a principle to ensure that statutory authority arrives at a just decision either in promoting the interest or affecting the rights of persons. To use thephrase "that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done" is the essence of fairness equally applicable to administrative authorities. Fairness is thus a prime test for proper and good administration. It has no set form or procedure. It depends upon the facts of each case. As Lord Pearson said in PearlbergVarty ((1972) 1 WLR 534, 547 : (1972) 2 All ELR6) (at p. 547), fairness does not necessarily require a plurality of hearings or representations and counter representations. Indeed, it cannot have too much elaboration of procedure since wheels of administration must move quickly.In the present case, the States has withdrawn the pending reference from the Labour Court, Dhanbad and transferred it to another Labour Court at the distant District of Patna, on the representation of the workman, without getting it verified from the management. The state in fairness ought to have got it verified by giving an opportunity to the management which is a party to the pending reference. Denial of that opportunity is a fatal flaw to the decision of the government.25. The management need not establish particular prejudice for want of such opportunity. In S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan ((1980) 4 SCC 379 : (1981) 1 SCR 746 , 765) Chinnappa Reddy, J., after referring to the observation of Donaldson, J., in Altco Ltd. v. Sutherland ((1971) 2 Lloyds Rep 515) said that the concept that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done is basic to our system and it is concerned not with a case of actual injustice but with the appearance of injustice or possible injustice. It was emphasized that the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. Theof natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary.26. This takes us to the reasons given by the Government in support of the order of transfer. The Government has stated that the workman is having his residence at Hajipur and it would be, therefore, inconvenient for him to attend the Labour Court regularly at Dhanbad. However, most of the factors do not point that way. The workman and his family members seem to still residing in colony quarters at Dhanbad (Annexure C). His two sons are studying in De Nobili School at Mugma which is a nearby village. Reference may be made to a letter dated September 8, 1988 (Annexure D) of the Headmaster of the School in which the children of the workman are studying. Reference may also be made to a letter (Annexure B) from the Assistant Electrical Engineer in proof of the electricity supplied to the quarters occupied by the workman at Dhanbad. As against these material, the workman has not produced any proof in support of his allegation that he has been residing in a village home near Patna. In fact, in thehe has not defined the documents annexed to the Special Leave Petition, and not seriously disputed the factum of his residence in the colony quarters at Dhanbad. Even the alleged recommendation of the Ward Commissioner referred in hishas not been produced. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Government was misled by the representation of the workman.