Industrial dismissal law: "in accordance with law" includes a fair enquiry, and perverse findings on enquiry can be corrected in writ review.

In industrial dismissal disputes, the phrase "in accordance with law" was held to include the industrial law requirement of a proper and fair enquiry by management, so a dismissal could be tested against fairness, perversity, mala fides, and victimisation. The Labour Commissioner was found to have jurisdiction to examine the legality of the dismissal even where the management enquiry was alleged to be absent or defective. A finding that no enquiry had been held was treated as perverse because the record showed examination of witnesses and enquiry papers, making it liable to correction in writ jurisdiction. The dismissal order was upheld and the employee's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for the purpose of dismissal of an employee under the industrial dispute settlement scheme, the expression "in accordance with law" included the industrial law requirement of a proper enquiry by the management; (ii) Whether the Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to hold an enquiry where the management enquiry was said to be absent or defective; (iii) Whether the finding that no enquiry had been held was perverse and liable to correction in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether, for the purpose of dismissal of an employee under the industrial dispute settlement scheme, the expression "in accordance with law" included the industrial law requirement of a proper enquiry by the management.

Analysis: The expression "in accordance with law" in the relevant schedule was construed broadly and not confined to the ordinary law of master and servant. The legal background of industrial adjudication was held to be part of the law governing dismissal, including the principle that a dismissal may be set aside where no proper and fair enquiry has been held, or where the enquiry is unfair, perverse, mala fide, or amounting to victimisation.

Conclusion: Yes. The requirement of dismissal "in accordance with law" included the industrial law requirement of a proper enquiry.

Issue (ii): Whether the Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to hold an enquiry where the management enquiry was said to be absent or defective.

Analysis: The statutory scheme empowered the Labour Commissioner to examine whether a dismissal was in contravention of the Act or the standing orders after such enquiry as may be prescribed. On that footing, the absence of a proper management enquiry did not necessarily exclude jurisdiction; the Commissioner could still examine the matter and determine the legality of the dismissal on evidence.

Conclusion: Yes. The Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry.

Issue (iii): Whether the finding that no enquiry had been held was perverse and liable to correction in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The record before the Assistant Labour Commissioner contained material showing that witnesses had been examined and signatures were obtained on the enquiry papers. The omission of the enquiring officer's signature did not reasonably support the inference that no enquiry had taken place. A finding that no enquiry had been held was therefore treated as one which no properly instructed judicial mind could have reached, amounting to an error apparent on the face of the record and liable to correction under Articles 226 and 227.

Conclusion: Yes. The finding was perverse and could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal order was upheld in law, the industrial court's interference was set aside, and the Assistant Labour Commissioner's rejection of the employee's application was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In industrial dismissal disputes, the phrase "in accordance with law" encompasses industrial law requirements of a fair enquiry, and a patently perverse finding on the existence of such enquiry is amenable to correction in writ jurisdiction.

---