Case: Burn and Company Limited Vs. Workman and Another

2. The facts shortly are as follows. The petitioner was an employee of Messrs. Refractory and Ceramic Works, Culfarbari under the management of Burn and Company. He was dismissed on February 8, 1966. He joined his employment on July 5, 1965. He was charged with certain alleged acts of misdemeanour under the works standing standing orders for incidents which had taken place on 16th and 17th November 1965. The charge sheet was issued to him on 13th November 1965. Put shortly, the charges against him wereNovember 16, 1965 between the hours of 4 and 4.30 p.m., i.e., before the close of the factory for the day, the employee had been asked to carry a bag of sugar to the canteen by one B. Mukherjee who was in charge of the stores. On that day, there were only four workmen instead of six whose normal duty would include the carrying of the said bag of sugar. According to the management, Prabhunath Singh along with Gopal were asked to take the bag to the canteen. Prabhunath Singh not only refused to do the work but indulged in argument with Shri Mukherjee showing insubordination or wilful disobedience.According to the management, on November 17, 1965, another mazdoor by the name of Hari was asked to bring tea from the canteen for Shri Mukherjee and such work, among others, used to be done by the mazdoors regularly. Prabhunath left his job and came over to Hari to obstruct him from going to bring tea. He was asked as to why he had left his job and was interfering with anothers job. Prabhunath however persisted in asking Hari not to go to the canteen.Prabhunath had himself recorded a complaint against Shri Mukherjee. According to him, on 6th November he had protested that four men could not be asked to do the work of six and thereupon he was threatened that if the work was not completed a charge sheet would be issued to him. As regards the incident of the 17th, Prabhunaths version was entirely different from Mukherjees. According to Prabhunath, Mukherjee had, without any cause, pushed him by the neck and asked him to get out when he was sorting out knives in front of the oil godown.The board of enquiry constituted to investigate into the charge sheet examined a number of persons including Prabhunath Singh, his colleagues, Gopal, Pran, Hari and Sagar Mandal, besides K. B. Biswas, B. P. Mukherjee, P. K. Gopalan and M. R. Das on the managerial side. According to the board, Prabhunath Singh was guilty of all the charges levelled against him. The board found that he did not carry out the instructions of his superior and that he had interfered with the work of another employee, besides being disorderly in his conduct on the morning of 17th. The board further found that he could not produce any witness to prove his defence and that he had falsely implicated Mukherjee of the charge that Mukherjee had thrashed him.According to clause 14(b) of the standing orders of the company, wilful disobedience or insubordination and interference with the work of other employees were to be regarded as major misdemeanours. The said clause of the standing orders provided :"A worker may be dismissed without notice or compensation in lieu of notice if he is found to be guilty of a major misdemeanourIn awarding punishment under this standing order, the manager shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the workman and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist ........"Before the labour court a story of victimisation of the workers had been put forward. The court held that it was totally without any merit as also that "the incidents as alleged by Shri Mukherjee in Ext. A/1 give the correct version as to what exactly had happened and that the findings of the board as recorded in Ex. E seem to be quite clear."The court observed that :"I would have at once answered the reference against the workman but rather serious question of law arises as to the propriety of the order of dismissal in view of the charge No. 2 for alleged interference with the work of other employees .........."3. According to the court, is was not the business of the members of the staff to carry tea from the canteen for Mukherjee and although Prabhunath had no business to ask Hari not to bring tea for him, this act did not constitute interference with Haris work as the latter was not engaged in any lawful duty. In this view of the matter, the court found it difficult to uphold the order of removal from service because it was not clear to what extent the order "was passed on the ground or grounds found bad".

Court's reasoning:
4. In our view, the labour court usurped the functions of an appellate court from the order of the board of enquiry. The board had recorded that the work of bringing tea had always been done by the workers. There was nothing unlawful about this work if the workman concerned was inclined to do it, as it had usually been done by other workers, and the conduct of Prabhunath in asking Hari not to do it was nothing short of interference with his work. All that the labour court had jurisdiction to see was whether the board of enquiry had observed the rules of natural justice and conduced the enquiry in a manner to which no exception could be taken. If these conditions were fulfilled and if the standing orders of the company entitled the board to pass an order of removal from service in case of a major misdemeanour, It was not within the jurisdiction of the labour court to order reinstatement of the worker. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [1963Supp. I S.C.R. 648].In the instant case, the labour court found no fault with the finding of the board of enquiry on the first charge which by itself, according to the standing orders, might be visited with an order of dismissal from service. As we have already pointed out that it was not for the labour court to sit in appeal over the board of enquiry with regard to the second charge, and even if the second charge had not been proved, the order of dismissal was good on the basis of the first charge.6. The labour court also went into the question as to whether the previous record of the workman and the extenuating circumstances had been considered by the board of enquiry. According to the court, the incident of 16th November, 1965 "was perhaps not so serious as to dismiss an employee." As noticed before, the workman had been in employment of this company for a period of four months only and therefore there could be no question of the consideration of his past record. Nor was there any extenuating circumstances. At any rate, it was not for the labour court to order reinstatement when the board of enquiry had found him guilty of two acts of major misdemeanour rendering him liable to dismissal. The enquiry did not offend any principle of natural justice and the labour court fell into an error in exercising appellate powers by coming to different conclusion.