Case: Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited Vs. Ganesh Dutt and Others

2. The appellant is a public limited company owning textile mill, called "Delhi Cloth Mills" (D.C.M.) in Bara Hindu Rao Delhi. The respondents were the workmen employed in the mills. The appellant also owns another textile mill called "Swatantra Bharat Mills" situated at Najafgarh Road, Delhi.3. A dispute arose in the later part of 1965 between the employees and the appellant regarding the payment of bonus for the yearNegotiations for settling the rate of bonus for the year ending June 30, 1965, however, failed on February 16, 1966. As the period prescribed under the Payment of Bonus Act for payment of bonus for the accounting year was drawing near, the appellant on February 21, 1966 declared bonus at 6% of the annual wages. The actual disbursement of bonus was to commence on the afternoon of February 22, 1966. However, the union exhorted the workmen not to accept the bonus declared by the appellant, which resulted in the workmen refusing to receive the bonus and going on strike in the afternoon of February 23, 1966. According to the appellant, the strike was followed by serious acts of violence and destruction of property on February 23, 1966 and thereafter. This resulted in the appellant declaring a lockout in the mills on the evening of February 24, 1966, as according to the appellant the strike was illegal and the employees had turned violent. Ultimately, the entire dispute relating to the payment of bonus and the justification for the strike as well as thewere referred to the Special Industrial Tribunal by the Delhi Administration by reference dated March 4, 1966.4. According to the appellant, during the period of the strike serious and extensive damage and been committed by some of the employees by forcibly entering the office of the spinning A department of the mills on the night between 23/24th February, 1966 at 1.30 a.m. The employees acting in concert broke open the almirah kept in the said department and destroyed the records, spare parts and furniture etc. According to the appellant, it received three reports Exs.34 from the employees of the spinning A department of the mills, regarding the violent activities of some of the workmen and the destruction of property done by them. In particular, names of four employees, who were working in the said department were mentioned as persons who had taken part in the rioting and destruction of the property of the mills. Those employees were : (1) Rati Ram : (2) Bhoop Singh; (3) Hari Chand; and (4) Ganesh Dutt. The three persons who had sent reports Exs. M. 32 to M. 34 have given evidence in the domestic inquiry.

Court's reasoning:
15. In view of the fact that we are accepting the first contention of Mr. Anand, that the enquiry proceedings are not vitiated by any of the circumstances pointed out by the Tribunal, we do not think it necessary to deal with the second contention of the learned counsel.16. So far as the first contention is concerned, the Industrial Tribunal has held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management not valid in view of the following circumstances : (1) That the copies of the reports sent by the three employees in the spinning A department Exs. M. 32 to M. 34 were not furnished to the workmen at any stage either before the commencement of the enquiry or even during the course of the enquiry; (2) The appellant did not furnish the workmen a list of witnesses, whom it proposed to examine in the domestic enquiry; (3) The workmen, whose misconduct was being enquired into wereon the side of the management; and (4) The reports Exs. M. 32 to M. 34 did not give full and complete details regarding the part played by the workmen concerned. We can deal with all the circumstances given by the Tribunal together.17. We have gone through the enquiry proceedings as well as the report of the enquiry officer. The enquiry proceedings commenced on April 1, 1966. There is no controversy that the workmen concerned were present before the enquiry officer throughout the enquiry proceedings. In fact it is seen that there was one Babu Ram Mishra, representing two workmen namely, Rati Ram and Hari Chand on April 1, 1966. But Babu Ram Mishra represented only Rati Ram from the next day. From April 2, 1966 onwards, Hari Chand conducted his own defence. The other two workmen Ganesh Dutt and Bhoop Singh represented that they did not want to bring anyone to represent them it the enquiry proceedings and that they would themselves defend their cases. The charges as well as the explanations furnished by the workmen were read over to them by the enquiry officer and the workmen pleaded not guilty. Babu Ram Mishra, who was representing some of the workmen in the enquiry proceeding requested the enquiry officer that the evidence, on the basis of whichwere issued may be furnished to the workmen. This request was reiterated by the other workmen also. The enquiry officer directed copies of such evidence to be furnished to the workmen by 2.30 p.m. that day in order to enable the workmen to prepare their defence. The proceedings were adjourned to the next day, i.e. April 2, 1966. Before 2.30 P.M. on April 1, 1966, copies of the reports Exs. M. 32 to M. 34 were furnished to the workmen and there is a further endorsement by the enquiry officer that the enquiry proceedings are adjourned to the next day, i.e., April 2, 1966 and that copies of the reports have been furnished to the workmen. All the workmen have signed the endorsement in token of having received the copies of the reports, as well as about the proceedings being adjourned to the next day.We are not inclined to accept this contention of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. There can be no controversy that the three persons who made the reports Exs. M. 32 to M. 34 had given evidence in full in the presence of workmen before the enquiry officer and they were alsoat length by some of the workmen themselves or by Babu Ram Mishra, on behalf of Rati Ram.22. There is no indication that Hari Chand andine because of the fact that the copies of the reports had been supplied to them only on the date of the enquiry. If they had any real grievance in that regard, they could have very well made a request to the enquiry officer for grant of time. Admittedly, they did not make any such request. Even apart from this, it is clear that the entire evidence has been given by the witnesses in the presence of the workmen and the latter knew full well the nature of the evidence that was being given against them and they had sufficient opportunity tothe witnesses, if they chose. Therefore,of the copies of the reports along with thehas never been made a grievance by any of the workmen, when the enquiry proceedings were being conducted.The Tribunal is also in error in holding that because the workmen werethe enquiry proceedings are vitiated. When the workmen have examined witnesses on their behalf and gave their statements, there is no prohibition in law for the companythe workmen concerned regarding the statements made by them.27. A perusal of the enquiry proceedings clearly shows that the company has only asked them questions regarding some of the matters referred to by the workmen in their statements. We were referred to the decisions of this Court in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen and another, [1963II L.L.J. 396]; (1964) 3 S.C.R. 652, Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Karunamoy Banerjee, [1967II L.L.J. 739]; (1968) 1 S.C.R. 251, and Employers of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1967II L.L.J. 715]; (1968) 1 S.C.R. 307, as laying down the proposition that the workman against whom an enquiry for misconduct is being conducted, cannot beWe are satisfied that none of the decisions referred to above, lay down any such proposition.It must be stated that theclearly show the nature of the allegations made against the workmen and their explanations also shown that they understood very well the nature of the allegations that they had to meet. In fact, even themade by some of the workmen, of the witnesses, clearly shows that they were attempting to establish that no such incident took place as spoken to by the witnesses. No doubt, this attempt miserablylegal position is that where a proper enquiry has been held by the management, the Tribunal has to accept the finding arrived at in that enquiry unless it is perverse or unreasonable and should give the permission asked for unless it has reason to believe that the management is guilty of victimisation or has been guilty of unfair labour practice or is acting mala fide : (vide The Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1959II L.L.J. 666]; (1960) 1 S.C.R. 806, Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jai Singh, [1961II L.L.J. 644], Management of Ritz Theatre (P.) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1962II L.L.J. 498]; (1963) 3 S.C.R. 461, and Mysore Steel Works v. Jitendra Chandra Kar & others, [1971is contention cannot be accepted because in the order dated May 9, 1966, communicated to each of the workmen, in the penultimate paragraph it has been stated that while arriving at the decision to dismiss the employees from the service for misconduct, all relevant circumstances, including the past record of service, have been fully taken into consideration. So far as we could see, no challenge has been made by the workmen that the appellant has not taken into account his pastthe contention of Mr. Sharma that the order is bad in view of the fact that the workman has been suspended without the previous permission of the Tribunal, on the basis of the above ruling, has to be rejected.34. For all the reasons given above, the order of the Special Industrial Tribunal is set aside and the application filed by theNo. 24 of 1966, before the Industrial Tribunal, is ordered as prayed for.