Case: Management of Travancore Titanium Products Limited Vs. Their Workmen

1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, the Management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., Trivandrum, and the respondents its workmen through their Union. The dispute in question was in regard to the dismissal of one of the employees of the appellant, Mr. N. Ramaswamy Pillai, who was a Store Keeper at Trivandrum. The respondent urged that the dismissal of Pillai was unjustified and he was entitled to reinstatement. The appellant contended that the dismissal was justified and the workman concerned was entitled to no relief. The Tribunal has upheld the plea raised by the respondent and has directed the appellant to reinstate Pillai in its employment and to pay him his back wages in full from the date of his dismissal until the date of his reinstatement. It is the correctness and propriety of this award that is challenged before us by Mr. Pai on behalf of the appellant2. It is common ground that Pillai was, at the relevant time, the Store Keepere of stores in the appellant concern. In the course of his duties, he had to despatch raw materials to the Processing Plant where the product of Titanium Dioxide is manufactured. The material supplied in this case in respect of which the workman Pillai was charged is Glue. This material is required for the processing of Titanium Dioxide3. On the 15th September, 1961, Pillai was served with a memo, to explain certain discrepancies found in the issue of stores of glue in the month of July, 1961. An explanation was submitted by him on the 16th September, 1961. Later, on the 27th September, 1961, another memo was served on Pillai. This memo sought to correct the amount of glue mentioned in the first memo. On the 23rd September, 1961, yet another memo of charge was served on him, and he gave his explanation on the 26th September, 1961. The next day, he was served with a formalt stating that an enquiry would be conducted against him on the 30th September, 1961; the same day he was placed under suspension. An enquiry was then conducted on the 30th September, 1961, and as a result of the enquiry, he was dismissed from service on the 5th October, 1961.These charges were framed against Pillai. The first was that in the Raw Material Stores Requisition Particulars given below, the third copies retained in the Requisition Book showed the quantity of glue supplied by him as a bag of 93 1bs, but it was noted that he had altered the figure 1 to 2 Bags of 186 1bs in the 1st and 2nd copies thereof, byg thereby showing a false issue of 1 extra bag to 93 1bs of glue without actually issuing it to the Requisition Section of the Plant. Then followed a reference to several entries made by Pillai in the Requisition Book. After they were set out, certain entries in the Requisition Book which showed suspiciousg were mentioned, the result of which was to change 1 bag of glue into 2; this was charge No. 2. The third charge was in relation to requisition No. 7339 issued on the 3rd August, 1961 by Mr. R. V. George, and had alleged that Pillai had interpolated an entry in the said Requisition relating to 1 bag of glue without actually issuing the material. The substance of the charges was that Pillai had falsely manipulated the Stores Records knowing the alterations to be false and with deliberate intention of defrauding the company. Thet further stated that this conduct on the part of Pillai amounted to misconduct under Standing Order 20,e (4), of the standing orders for Staff.

Reasoning:
We are not impressed by this argument. Since the standing order insists upon notice of three clear days being given to the workman, failure to comply with the standing order does introduce an infirmity in the proceedingsThe Tribunal has stated that Mr. Iyer wanted to assist Pillai, but that he was not allowed to do so. In this connection, the Tribunal has made a significant observation, that it did not think that it should make further comment on this point. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the enquiry contravened the mandatory provision of the relevant Standing Order, and was thus entirely vitiated. That being so, the appellant cannot rely upon the findings recorded at the said enquiry and cannot justify the dismissal of Pillai on the strength of the said findings.That takes us to the merits of the appellants case that Pillai was guilty of misconduct. In dealing with this point, we ought to point out that before the Tribunal, charge No. I was not pressed, and no evidence was adduced in respect of charge No. 3; and that means that the Tribunal was called upon to consider whether the appellant had proved its case against Pillai in regard to charge No. 2In our opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative.It is well settled that where dealing with an industrial dispute arising from the dismissal of an industrial employee, the employer fails to prove to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that the domestic enquiry was fair, it is open to him to lead evidence justifying the impugned dismissal; and in such a case, the Tribunal has to consider the evidence for itself and decide whether the dismissal was justified or not. Ordinarily, the decision of such a question depends upon appreciating evidence, both oral and documentary; and in dealing with appeals brought to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution against awards pronounced by Industrial Tribunals in such matters, this Court is reluctant to examine the evidence for itself. Normally the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal as a result of its appreciation of evidence are not disturbed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 136. We see no reason to depart from this usual practice in the present case10. Then as to the Supervisors, the Tribunal has commented on the fact that if the appellants case against Pillai was right, then the quantity shown as supplied from the Stores in the third copies is the double of what was originally indented for; and that being so, it was idle for the Supervisors to state that they received only the quantity indented before correction. This comment is justified, because the Supervisors claimed that they invariably checked up the quantity supplied with the third copy. The Tribunal has also referred to some other relevant considerations while discussing the evidence of these Supervisors. Having disbelieved the evidence of the Production Manager and the Supervisors, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that there was any difference between the issue and consumption of glue covered by the requisitions mentioned in thet is true that the Tribunal was aware that there were certain corrections ands in some of the requisitions in question and that the corrections remained unattested by anybody; but the Tribunal has taken into account the procedure which was followed by ther in dealing with these requisitions and has observed that "none of the authorities in the various sections or departments through whose hands these corrections ands have had occasion to pass, has taken it into his head to call for any explanation from ther for the corrections or11. In regard to the relief of the reinstatement granted by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has observed that Pillai has to his credit 12 years of unblemished service under the appellant, and it has referred to the fact that the Production Manager himself had stated that before 1961, he had no occasion to suspect him in regard to the execution of the work entrusted to him as. In fact, his past record shows that Pillai was one of the trusted employees of the appellant. Under these circumstances, we think the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to reinstate Pillai and to give him all his back wages in full from the date of dismissal to the date of his reinstatement.