Case: Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management Of M/S. Usha Breco Ltd

3. Krishna Kishore Yadav, Intervenor and one R.P. Singh were employees of the respondent. They were said to be Union leaders. On or about 17.02.1984, the respondent received a complaint from one G. Natarajan with regard to acts of misconduct committed by the said workmen in the factory premises contending that while he was having discussions with one Shekhar Rao, representative of the contractor known as M/s. Techno Fab, the said workmen came and asked him as to whether there existed any arrangement for grant of first aid or not, whereto he replied that such a provision has to be made by the Company and not by the Contractor. Discussion therein ensued. The workmen were informed by Natarajan that the matter should be discussed with the Personnel Manager of the Company. One Shri Dara Singh, another contractor being M/s. S.D. Construction also reached there. The same question was asked to Mr. Dara Singh to which also he replied that the grant of making provision of first aid was the duty of the Management and not that of the Contractor. The workmen started misbehaving with the said persons using indecent and unparliamentary languages. They were abused in a harsh tone whereto an objection was raised by Shri Dara Singh whereupon he was abused in filthy languages and threatened him with dire consequences. He was also assaulted by iron rod by the intervenor herein. Thereafter Shri Dara Singh also picked up an iron rod. R.P. Singh also picked up another iron rod in his hand. With the intervention of the officers and some workers, they were separated. The said workmen thereafter instigated the workers to stop the work.4. On the aforementioned allegations, a First Information Report was lodged. A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated. The delinquent workmen were placed under suspension. In the departmental proceedings, they were found guilty. An industrial dispute was raised whereupon the appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication by a Labour Court, Jamshedpur. Before the Labour Court, a plea was raised by the workmen that they as Secretary and Vice-President of the workers of the Company had gone to Shri Natarajan and others for ventilating their grievances, but the management with a view to victimize them and by way of resorting to unfair labour practices had placed them under suspension.5. Several issues were framed having regard to the pleadings of the parties by the learned Labour Court. The question as to whether the domestic enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice or otherwise legal was taken up as a preliminary issue. The Enquiry Officer was examined before the Labour Court. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court by an order dated 16.08.1990Perused the inquiry report. In the inquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has mentioned the evidence of all witnesses on the basis of which decision was taken in respect of the charges. The oral and the documentary evidence has been mentioned and the decision is based on them. The show cause of the workmen has also been considered. Therefore, enquiry report cannot be said to be perverse.7. Therefore, it is held that the domestic enquiry has been made following the principles of natural justice and is legal and the second question is answered against the workmen and in favour of the Management.However, by reason of a final award dated 17.02.1992, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, while determining the issue as to whether the management had been able to prove the charges levelled against the workmen, upon considering the report of the Enquiry Officer,On the basis of evidences on record adduced on behalf of both the parties and discussions made above the picture comes out on the surface that in course of demanding First Aid for the workmen by these two dismissed workmen from the management and contractors caused heated discussions between the contractors and these workmen who are office bearers of the union and the management has taken side on favour of the contractors and against these two workmen such probably because of their demand and trade union activities (vide ext W/2 series and statements of W.W/1 and W.W/2 and ext. M/4 and M/7) and has made a mole to mountain. It has also established that the management has failed to establish any of the charges against any of the workmen successfully. Hence, issue no. (1) is answered accordingly.On the aforementioned premise, the Labour Court held that no charge had been proved against the workmen and as such they were entitled to be reinstated in service. So far as the workman Krishna Kishore Yadav is concerned, similar finding was arrived at by the Labour Courtthe perusal of the evidences in the statement of W.W/1 and W.W/2 it appears that the Workmen K.K. Yadav received the c/sheet dated 18.2.84 on the same day and submitted his explanation within the time limit therein. Hence, on the basis of the evidences and the statement, noted above and the statements of the management witnesses and the statement as W.W/1 and W.W/2. I find that there was scuffle between the contractor and this workman and both shouted against each other which was merely psychological and natural in such a situation and nothing untoward happened nor any injury was caused to anybody. The record reflects that the workman K.K. Yadav has taken the c/sheet and submitted the explanation responding it and there was power cut on the day of occurrence for some time as well which caused the stopping of the factory.A writ petition was filed by the appellant questioning the legality and validity of the said Award. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by a judgment and order dated 31.07.2000 refused to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Labour Court. However, the learned Single Judge reduced the amount of back wages to 50%.9. The matter was taken to the Division Bench of the High Court by way of Letters Patent Appeals preferred by both the appellant and the respondent. The said appeal was allowed as regards the question posed by the Labour Court as to whether the management had been able to prove the charges levelled against the workmen on the basis of the evidences brought on records. Having regard to the fact that no evidence was laid by the parties before the Labour Court, it wasit was because of its own conclusion that the Domestic Enquiry was valid and proper. So, no occasion arose for the Labour Court to ask itself the question whether on the evidence, the charges have been proved. In fact, as we have earlier noted, the very finding on 16.8.1990 was to the effect that the findings of the Domestic Enquiry was supported by the evidence taken at that Enquiry. Thus, in our view, the Labour Court had asked itself a wrong question when it posed the first question for decision. Thereafter it has proceeded to record a finding that the Management has not proved the charged levelled against the workmen. When a Tribunal has asked itself a wrong question and even if it has answered that question correctly, it acts outside its jurisdiction attracting the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court (see Anisiminic). Here, the Labour Court has committed such an error of jurisdiction.Before us, Krishna Kishore Yadav got himself impleaded as a party and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original appellant was permitted to withdraw.

Reasoning: 13. An order of punishment meted out to a workman indisputably can be a subject matter of reference by the appropriate government in terms of Section 10 of the Act.14. Validity or legality of a Domestic Enquiry as also the question as to whether the principles of natural justice had been complied or not could be determined by way of a preliminary issue. What would be the extent of jurisdiction of the Labour Court in this behalf, had come up for consideration before this Court in a large number of decisions. The view taken by this Court was that if the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer on the materials placed before it was a possible view, the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to substitute its own judgment although it could itself have arrived at a different conclusion on the same materials.The legal principle, in our opinion, is neither in doubt nor in dispute. The question is that of its application. We at the outset must, with respect, observe that the jurisdictional issue determined by the Labour Court was not premised on a wrong question. It was one thing to say that an administrative body or a quasi-judicial authority misdirected itself in determining the issue by posing unto itself a wrong question which would obviously lead to a wrong answer, but, it would be another thing to say that although the administrative authority or the quasi-judicial body did not lack inherent jurisdiction but committed a jurisdictional error in exercising its jurisdiction.Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 : (1969) 1 All ER208, to which reference has been made by the Division Bench says so. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was not correct in its view having regard to the binding precedent operating in this behalf in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (supra) that the first question posed by the Labour Court amounted to a misdirection in law. The proper issue which should have been posed was as to whether a case for interference had been made out.Indisputably, in the event, fresh evidence is adduced before the Labour Court by the Management, the Labour Court will have the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence. But, in a case where the materials brought on record by the Enquiry Officer fall for re-appreciation by the Labour Court, it should be slow to interfere therewith. It must come to a conclusion that the case was a "proper" one therefor. The Labour Court shall not interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer only because it is lawful to do so. It would not take recourse thereto only because another view is possible. Even assuming that, for all intent and purport, the Labour Court acts as an appellate authority over the judgment of the Enquiry Officer, it would exercise appropriate restraint. It must bear in mind that the Enquiry Officer also acts as a quasi-judicial body. Before it, parties are not only entitled to examine their respective witnesses, they can cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the other side. They are free to adduce documentary evidence. The parties as also the Enquiry Officer can also summon witnesses to determine the truth. The Enquiry Officer can call for even other records. It must indisputably comply with the basic principles of natural justice.Before a departmental proceeding, the standard of proof is not that the misconduct must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt but the standard of proof is as to whether the test of pre-ponderance of probability has been met. The approach of the Labour Court appeared to be that the standard of proof on the Management was very high. When both the parties had adduced evidence, the Labour Court should have borne in mind that the onus of proof loses all its significance for all practical purpose.The upshot of our discussion is that the decision of the Labour Court should not be based on mere hypothesis. It cannot overturn a decision of the Management on ipse dixit. Its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act although is a wide one, must be judiciously exercised. Judicial discretion, it is trite, cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously. It may scrutinize and analyse the evidence but what is important is how it does so.35. It is also of some significance that the co-delinquent workman R.P. Singh who came to the aid of the impleaded applicant Krishna Kishore Yadav has accepted the finding of the High Court.36. Before us, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, has relied upon a decision of this Court in Sardar Singh (supra). We do not find that any legal principle has been laid down therein. It was a case of habitual unauthorized absence which was found to have been proved.The said decision again was rendered on its facts and no legal principle can be culled out therefrom.We, therefore, are of the opinion no case has been made out for interfering with the ultimate conclusion of the High Court, albeit for different reasons.