Case: P. H. Kalyani Vs. M/S. Air France Calcutta

1. This appeal by special leave challenges the order of the Second Labour Court, West Bengal, relating to the dismissal of the appellant, who was in the service of the respondent-company. A charge-sheet was issued to the appellant on April 23, 1960 under the signature of the Station Manager of the respondent-company. The charge-sheet contained two charges of gross dereliction of duty inasmuch as the appellant had made mistakes in the preparation of a load sheet on one day and a balance chart on another day, which mistakes might have led to a serious accident to the aircraft. The appellant gave his reply to the charge-sheet on April 26, 1960 in which he admitted the mistakes that had been made. He however, contended that he was over-worked and further that it was the duty of others also to check the load-sheet and balance chart prepared by him. 9th May, 1960 was fixed for inquiry by the Station Manager. The appellant objected to the inquiry being held by the Station Manager on the ground that the Station Manager was biased against him on account of the evidence which he had given against the Station Manager in a customs case which was partly responsible for the infliction of a fine on the Station Manager. His objection was however overruled and the inquiry was held by the State Manager and completed on May 10, 1960. Thereafter it appears that the Station Manager forwarded his findings and recommendations to the Regional Representative of the respondent-company. The appellant was dismissed on May 28, 1960 by the Regional Representative; the order of dismissal provided for payment of one months wages to the appellant and also stated that an application was being made before the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, for approval of the action taken, apparently as some industrial dispute was pending before that tribunal. It appears that the order of dismissal was communicated to the appellant on May 30, and one months wages were also tendered to him. The same day the respondent fled an application before the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal seeking approval of the action. On June 3, 1960, the appellant made an application under S. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. XIV of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging, the action taken on a large number of grounds.2. These grounds were considered by the Labour Court and all of them were substantially decided against the appellant. The Labour Court held that the dismissal of the appellant was justified and therefore accorded approval for such dismissal. In particular, dealing with the various points raised on behalf of the appellant, the Labour Court held that the application under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Act was validly made even though it had been made after the order of dismissal had been passed. It further held that the case was not covered by S. 33 (1) of the Act and it was not necessary to obtain the previous permission of the tribunal before dismissing the appellant. It also held that the appellant was not a protected workman. Further as to the charge that the Station Manager was biased and therefore there was violation of the principles of natural justice, the Labour Court was of the view that the contention of the appellant that the Station Manager was biased against him because of the evidence he had given in the customs case could not be brushed aside lightly. But it went on to hold that even if there was some violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Station Manager was biased against the appellant, the respondent had adduced all the evidence before it in support of its action and it had to decide on that evidence whether the action was justified and approval should be granted. In this connection, the Labour Court relied on the decision of this Court in Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen, 1960 1 SCR 32  : (AIR 1959 SC 1111  ).3. The Labour Court then went into the evidence tendered before it. It pointed out that the appellant had admitted the two mistakes which were the basis of the charge. It also held that the mistakes were of a serious nature which might have resulted in an accident to the aircraft. It said that the fact that other people were also responsible for checking load-sheets and balance-charts would not mitigate the mistake committed by the appellant who was primarily responsible for preparing them. It also repelled the charge of victimisation raised on behalf of the appellant on account of the delay in giving him the charge-sheet. Finally, it came to the conclusion that the mistakes committed by the appellant were serious involving possible accident to the aircraft and possible loss of human life. It was not prepared to accept the plea of over-work and other pleas raised on behalf of the appellant to mitigate the mistakes committed by him. It pointed out that the mistakes being of a serious nature the punishment of dismissal inflicted by the respondent could not be said to be unconscionable or entirely out of proportion to the gravity of the offense. It therefore dismissed the application of the appellant under S. 33-A of the Act and accorded approval to the action taken by the respondent. This decision of the Labour Court is being challenged by the present appeal by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
In the present case the order of dismissal was passed by the Regional Representative on May 28,1960 and was communicated to the appellant on May 30th. The wages were offered to the appellant at the same time when the order was communicated to him, though he did not accept them. The respondent also made the application under S. 33 12) (b) to the industrial tribunal the same day. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the Labour Court was right in holding that the application under S. 33 (2) (b) was in accordance with the proviso to that section and was properlyare of opinion that the question whether a particular workman is a protected workman or not is a question of fact, and the finding of the Labour Court on such a question will generally be accepted by this Court asthe absence therefore of any evidence as to recognition the Labour Court rightly held that the appellant was not a protected workman and therefore previous permission under S. 33 (3) of the Act would not be necessary before hisis now well settled by a number of decisions of this Court that it is open to the tribunal to go into the propriety of an order of dismissal itself, when there is a defect in the domestic inquiry. In these circumstances even if it be held that the Station Manager was biased and therefore there was some violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the inquiry was held by him,the Labour Court would be entitled to go into the question whether the dismissal was justified on the evidence led before it and this is exactly what the Labour Court did relying on the judgment of this Court in Phulbari Tea Estate, 1960 1 SCR 32   :(AIR 1959 SC 1111  ).The contention therefore on behalf of the appellant that the Labour Court was not entitled to go into the question whether the dismissal was justified once it held that the domestic inquiry was defective, must behowever find no reason to differ from the finding of the Labour Court on the question of victimisation, apart from the fact that a finding of victimisation is generally a question of fact and cannot be agitated in this Court. The Labour Court has pointed out that the plea of victimisation on the ground that there was some delay in giving the charge sheet to the appellant cannot be sustained, because that Station Manager came to know about the mistakes only a few days before the charge sheet was given, though the mistakes had actually been committed in January and March, and also because the appellant admitted the mistakes and there could be no doubt therefore that he had committed them. We agree with the Labour Court that in the face of the appellants admission of the mistakes there could be no question of victimisation in thispresent is a case where the employer has held an inquiry though it was defective and has passed an order of dismissal and seeks approval of that order. If the inquiry is not defective, the Labour Court has only to see whether there as a prima facie case for dismissal, and whether the employer had come to the bonafide conclusion that the employee was guilty of misconduct. Thereafter on coming to the conclusion that the employer had bona fide come to the conclusion that the employee was guilty i.e. there was no unfair labour practice and no victimisation, the Labour Court would grant the approval which would relate back to the date from which the employer had ordered the dismissal. If the inquiry is defective for any reason, the Labour Court would also have to consider for itself on the evidence adduced before it whether the dismissal was justified. However, on coming to the conclusion on its own appraisal of evidence adduced before it that the dismissal was justified its approval of the order of dismissal made by the employer in a defective inquiry would still relate back to the date when the order was made. The observations therefore in M/s. Sasa Musa Sugar Companys case, (1959) Supp (2) SCR 836: (AIR 1959 SC 923  ) on which the appellant relies apply only to a case where the employer had neither dismissed the employee nor had come to the conclusion that a case for dismissal had been made out. In that case the dismissal of the employee takes effect from the date of the award and so until then the relation of employer and employee continues in law and in fact. In the present case an inquiry has been held which is said to be defective in one respect and dismissal has been ordered. The respondent had however to justify the order of dismissal before the Labour Court in view of the defect in the inquiry. It has succeeded in doing so and therefore the approval of the labour Court will relate back to the date on which the respondent passed the order of dismissal. The contention of the appellant therefore that dismissal in this case should take effect from the date from which the Labour Court award came into operation must fail.