Case: Employers Of Firestone Tyre And Rubber Co. Ltd Vs. Their Workmen

The following are the circumstances leading up to it2. Subramaniam was a van driver with the Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. from 1953. One of his duties as a van driver was the transportation for delivery of the products of the Company. On June 18, 1963, Subramaniam set out to deliver tyres covered by six invoices to diverse addresses. Two of the invoices (Nos. 13815 and 13816) were concerned with eight tyres (4 tyres per invoice) of the specification 8.25 X 20 Tran. H.D.Nyl.12-PR. Subramaniam took delivery of the tyres and signed the six invoices. After locking the tyres in his van with a key which he claims never left his possession, he set out with one M. V. Das (packer/ scooter driver) by his side in the drivers cabin. This was soon after the lunch break. At about 3-15 P. M. Subramaniam telephoned to the office of the Company that two tyres from the two invoices were short. He was asked to return at once. On his return the tyres with him were unloaded and counted. By way of an immediate check the tyres held in stock were also counted. There was no excess in stock. The tyres in the van were short by two. Subramaniam maintained that no tyres were lost or stolen on the way. His case was that the tyres were shortloaded. After investigation, a charge-sheet was served on him for the following act of misconduct:-"Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employers business or property."The charge-sheet gave full details and fixed the time and place of an enquiry to be held against him, and further informed him that he could defend himself through a workman, produce evidence or cross-examine the witnesses. He was suspended pending the result of the enquiry. The enquiry was held by Mr. R. M. Coyajee, Industrial Relations Officer. Four witnesses for the Company and two for Subramaniam were examined. The Company filed 20 documents and Subramaniam filed 2 documents3. Mr. Coyajee found the charge proved and submitted the minutes of the enquiry to the Superior Officers. Then the Manager Southern Division informed Subramaniam that he was convinced of the latters guilt and that he had tentatively decided to dismiss him. He asked Subramaniam to show cause, if any, against this decision. Subramaniam showed cause but the Manager ordered his dismissal4. The Tyre and Rubber Companys Employees Union having raised a dispute the matter was referred to the Tribunal :"(a) whether the dismissal of Shri K. Subramaniam, van Driver by the employers of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (P) Ltd. Hyderabad is justified ?(b) If not, to what relief is he entitled?"Before the Tribunal the Union contended that the enquiry was opposed to the principles of natural justice and the conclusion was perverse. The Tribunal held that the enquiry was not held properly and the conclusion arrived at the domestic enquiry was perverse. The Tribunal rejected the evidence and on the basis of evidence recorded by it, held that the charge was not proved5. The Tribunal gave several reasons for its conclusion that the enquiry was not properly conducted. These were :(a) that the inquiry was held immediately after the investigation without taking the explanation of the workman;(b) The workman was examined and cross-examined even before the evidence against him was recorded;(c) Copies of the statements of witnesses examined at the preliminary enquiry were not supplied to the workman;(d) copies of the minutes of the inquiry were not given to the workman before asking him to reply to the show cause notice; and(e) the evidence of Das which cleared the workman was not properly considered.The Tribunal did not rely upon the record of the enquiry and on the basis of evidence recorded by itself, held that the fault of the workman was not established and that his dismissal was wrong, with the result already indicated.

Court's reasoning:
It has tried to meet each of the grounds and in our opinion successfully. We shall take these grounds one by one and indicate the submissions which in our opinion must be allowed to prevail.As regards ground No. (a) it is clear to us that, although it may he desirable to call for such an explanation before serving a charge-sheet there is no principle which compels such a course. The calling for an explanation can only be with a view to making an enquiry unnecessary, where the explanation is good but in many cases it would be open to the criticism that the defence of the workman was being fished out. If after a preliminary enquiry there is prima facie reason to think that the workman was at fault, a charge-sheet setting out the details of the allegations and the likely evidence, may be issued without offending against any principle of justice and fairplay.This is what was done here and we do not think that there was any disadvantage to the workmanIn these circumstances, it is hardly possible to say that the workman was at a disadvantage in any wayGround No. (c) was not a ground of complaint before the Tribunal. This ground was made out by the Tribunal. In fact these statements were not included in the record of the enquiry. Nor were they made the basis of any conclusion. As to ground No. (d) it is sufficient to say that the minutes were hardly needed as the workman was present personally and had conducted the defence. If he needed to read the record he could have easily asked for an inspection and we have no doubt in our mind that he would have been given such an inspection. The minutes show an utmost consideration at all stages of the need for a proper defence.The Tribunal equated the domestic enquiry to enquiries under Art. 311 of the Constitution which was hardly proper8. It seems to us that the enquiries officer afforded every opportunity to Subramaniam to controvert or prove his caseSubramaniam was informed of the charge very clearly, the witnesses were examined in his presence and he was allowed to cross-examine them fully. A true record was kept. He was given an opportunity to lead evidence and the enquiry officer and the manager gave him a full chance to explain, after apprising him in detail of the findings tentatively reached. The evidence of Das was not dealt with in detail but as Das was not concerned with the loading operation and his evidence was not apparently accepted that Subramaniam had not removed the tyres. Das was apparently taken to support Subramaniams claim that the tyres were not loaded at all, a conclusion not reached by the management on evidence10. In the present case Subramaniam had complained earlier that his version ought to have been elicited first before enquiry against him was ordered. This is exactly what was done by the enquiring officer. We had the whole of Subramaniams statement read to us and found nothing which we can say was unfair. The enquiring officer gave him an interpreter after ascertaining if he had any objection to the person selected, asked him to reply in English or Telugu as he preferred, invited him to call some workman to assist him, asked him the names of the witnesses he wished to examine and whether he wanted any further time for the preparation of his defence. He was then questioned about the loading of tyres in his van, the invoices he had signed and whether he had checked the tyres loaded. He was next asked what route he had followed, whether there was a chance of pilferage en route and whether he suspected any person of having interfered with the van. He was also asked if he was present when the stock was checked. He denied certain details of this stock taking. The issue was thus narrowed to the fact whether 8 tyres were loaded or 6, it being the case of the Company that 8 tyres were loaded and that of Subramaniam that only 6 tyres were loaded, but his receipt for 8 tyres was obtained. The witnesses who loaded the tyres were then called and were examined searchingly by the Presiding Officer and cross-examined by Subramaniam.No doubt some of the questions appeared to be leading but they were respecting the matter of record and too much legalism cannot be expected from a domestic enquiry of this character.The officer asked Subramaniam again and again whether he was defending himself properly or not and Subramaniam always expressed his satisfaction11. In these circumstances, we do not see how the enquiry can be said to have offended any principle of natural justice at all. The Tribunal mechanically applied the dicta of this Court without noticing that the facts here were entirely different from those in the cited cases and the observations covered those cases where all or most of the facts were contested and could not be made applicable to cases where a greater part of the evidence was a matter of written record and the difference was narrow. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the enquiry was properly conducted. As to the evidence of Das it is obvious that Das was supporting Subramaniam in his statement that no tyres were lost during the journey which supported the version that 6 tyres instead of 8 were actually loaded. It is curious that Das never left the van even when Subramaniam went out and on the solitary occasion when Das left the van Subramaniam was in the company of another officer of the Company at the Depot. The evidence of Subramaniam and Das taken together excludes the possibility of loading of 8 tyres. And this is how Das comes into the picture. It is obvious that the enquiring officer and the Manager relied upon the evidence of those who loaded the tyres supported as it was by the admission several times repeated by Subramaniam that he had checked the tyres at the time of loading. In other words, the Management refused to believe Subramaniam even though he was supported by Das. This the Management was entirely within its right in doing and the Tribunal was in error in exercising appellate powers by coming to a different conclusion. All that the Tribunal could do was to see that the enquiry was properly conducted. As in our opinion the enquiry was so conducted the decision of the Tribunal cannot be supported.