Case: M/s. Orissa Cement Limited Vs. Habibullah

2. The respondent who was a watchman in the appellants service had gone to the appellants hospital for treatment onThe doctor had prepared an injection to be given to the respondent to treat him for his malarial fever and the respondent was lying on the cot waiting for the injection. It appears that Madan Mohan, another employee of the appellant, who was present in the hospital took the syringe from the dispenser and gave the injection to the respondent. Proceedings were taken against Madan Mohan for his misconduct; and when the matter had gone before the industrial tribunal, the respondent was cited as a witness by the said Madan Mohan, and he made a statement trying to clear Madan Mohan of the charge levelled against him. The tribunal disbelieved the respondent and grantad the appellants application for dismissing Madan Mohan. In disbelieving the respondent the tribunal has made strong criticism against the evidence given by the respondent. It is principally in respect of this evidence that the present proceedings against the respondent were taken by the appellant.

Reasoning: Both these grounds did not appear to the tribunals below to justify the dismissal of the respondent, and the appellants argument is that the tribunals were in error in not allowing it to dismiss the respondent. We do not think that we would be justified in interfering with the orders passed by the tribunals below in thisour opinion it would be difficult to accede to the argument that if the evidence given by an employee in an industrial adjudication is disbelieved that itself without anything more would constitute misconduct as alleged by the appellant.Then in regard to the complaint made by the respondent against the appellant before the police, the Labour Appellate Tribunal has observed that no evidence was led to show that the said complaint was untrue. It is unnecessary to say that it would not be proper for employees to make such serious allegations against their employers; and if it appears that the complaints made were known to be false to the employees that would be a serious matter; but having regard to the circumstances of this case we do not think that the appellant can successfully challenge the validity of the order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal on this ground alone.