Case: Anil Kumar Chakraborty and Another Vs. Saraswatipur Tea Company Limited and Others

2. On 15th September, 1965 the appellant Anil Kumar a Compounder with the first respondent company was dismissed by the Management after holding an inquiry and finding him quality of (i) having incited labourers and workers to disrupt the administration and working of the tea gardens and (ii) having indulged in trafficking in drugs and medicines entrusted to him by the company for supply and distribution to the workers free of cost. The Industrial Tribunal, before whom the validity of dismissal was challenged, held that the inquiry, if at all one was held, was unfair and that the charges had not been proved by the management and, therefore, the dismissal was set aside and the appellant was directed to be reinstated with full back wages. A learned Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the Tribunals Award, but in appeal the Division Bench reversed the decision of the Tribunal as well as of the learned Single Judge holding that the domestic enquiry held by the Management was quite fair and proper and that Tribunal had in fact dealt with the case as if it were a Court of Appeal and not only the evidence had been meticulously assessed afresh but the adequacy of the evidence had also been come into and in doing so the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction and substituted its own evaluation of the evidence for the evaluation done by the domestic Court of Enquiry. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the Award. This decision is challenged in appeal.

Court's reasoning:
4. In Assam Oil Companys case (1960 (1) L.L.J. 587) this Court has taken the view that though the normal rule in cases of wrongful dismissal of an employee is to direct reinstatement there could be cases where it would not be expedient to follow this normal rule and a case of loss of confidence in the employee on the part of the management would be one such exceptional case where reasonable compensation would be the appropriate relief. Following this decision in Ruby General Insurance Co. v. Chopra (1970 (1) L.L.J. 63) this Court denied the relief of reinstatement having regard to the fact that the employee, a stenographer, was holding a position of trust and confidence and was found to have retained copies of some confidential letters dictated to him without the consent of the company and instead directed the compensation be paid to him for wrongful and punitive termination.