Go slow misconduct and limited union representation justified dismissal in domestic enquiry review

Go slow by workmen was treated as major misconduct under the company's standing orders, and the domestic enquiry was upheld because there was no contractual or inherent right to representation by a member of an unrecognised union. The Court found the charge supported by warnings and log-book evidence showing deliberate reduction in output aimed at pressuring the employer. It also rejected the Tribunal's finding of discrimination between groups of workmen and held that the Tribunal had wrongly reappreciated the evidence and interfered with bona fide disciplinary action. The Tribunal's reinstatement order was set aside and the dismissals of the twelve workmen were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the workmen were guilty of deliberate go-slow amounting to misconduct under the standing orders. (ii) Whether refusal to permit representation by a member of their own unrecognised union vitiated the domestic enquiry for breach of natural justice. (iii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the dismissal orders, including on the ground of alleged discrimination and inadequacy of punishment.

Issue (i): Whether the workmen were guilty of deliberate go-slow amounting to misconduct under the standing orders.

Analysis: The charge-sheet, read with the prior warning and the surrounding record, clearly related to slowing down of work. The evidence showed a sustained fall in production, corroborated by log books and the conduct of the workmen after the relevant date. The explanation offered for the reduced output was not accepted. Under the standing orders, slowing down of work was a major misconduct.

Conclusion: The charge of go-slow was proved and constituted misconduct.

Issue (ii): Whether refusal to permit representation by a member of their own unrecognised union vitiated the domestic enquiry for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The standing orders allowed representation only by a member of a recognised union. There was no general right to representation unless conferred by the standing orders. The refusal to allow a representative of the unrecognised union did not, in the circumstances, amount to denial of a reasonable opportunity or breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: The domestic enquiry was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the dismissal orders, including on the ground of alleged discrimination and inadequacy of punishment.

Analysis: The Tribunal had reappreciated the evidence as though sitting in appeal, although the management's action was supported by the proved misconduct and by the workmen's refusal to resume work. The alleged discrimination was not established, as the difference in treatment arose from the selection made through the union and from the different conduct of the respective groups of workmen. The dismissal was not shown to be perverse, mala fide, or unfair.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the dismissals.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal orders were restored and the workmen's challenge failed; the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where deliberate slowing down of work is proved as misconduct under the standing orders, and the domestic enquiry affords the procedure contemplated by the governing service rules, an industrial tribunal cannot interfere with the employer's punishment unless the action is shown to be mala fide, perverse, or otherwise legally unsustainable.

---