TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Adjudicator's decision in workman's favor, emphasizing natural justice principles</h1> The High Court upheld the Industrial Adjudicator's decision in favor of the respondent workman, ruling the departmental inquiry flawed and ordering ... Non issuing tickets to the passengers inspite of collecting the fare - punishment of removal from service to the guilty workman - Industrial Adjudicator deleted order of removal of the respondent workman from service - Held that:- The Industrial Adjudicator in the order dated 17th December, 2009 has given as many as three reasons for holding the departmental inquiry to be bad i.e. of the passengers during the inquiry having not supported the case of the checking staff, cash having not been checked by the checking staff and the appellant having not appointed the Presenting Officer. Merely, because sufficient opportunity of hearing had been given to the respondent workman alone is not sufficient for upholding the departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen AIR [1957 (10) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT] has held that though the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal administration and discipline but the power is not unlimited and when a dispute arises, the Industrial Adjudicator has the power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified. It was further held that though in cases of dismissal on misconduct the Industrial Adjudicator is not to act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management but the Industrial Adjudicator will interfere when there is want of good faith OR when there is victimization or unfair labour practice OR when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice and when on the material on record the finding is completely baseless or perverse. Thus each of the three reasons given by the Industrial Adjudicator for holding the inquiry to be bad was sufficient for setting aside the same. Issues:1. Validity of the departmental inquiry and the subsequent removal of the respondent workman.2. Interpretation of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 regarding the reinstatement and back wages of the respondent workman.3. Review of the Industrial Adjudicator's decision regarding the misconduct charges and reinstatement without back wages.4. Judicial review of the Industrial Adjudicator's decision by the High Court.Analysis:1. The respondent workman was charged with misconduct for not issuing tickets to passengers despite collecting fares. The Disciplinary Authority of the appellant imposed the punishment of removal from service. The Industrial Adjudicator later found the inquiry to be flawed due to various reasons, including lack of a Presenting Officer and insufficient evidence, leading to the decision in favor of the respondent workman.2. The Industrial Adjudicator awarded reinstatement to the respondent workman without back wages, which was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that re-assessment of evidence was beyond the scope of judicial review, upholding the decision of the Industrial Adjudicator.3. The appellant further appealed through an Intra-Court appeal, arguing that the Industrial Adjudicator exceeded its jurisdiction by deeming the findings of the departmental inquiry as perverse. The High Court referenced legal precedents to support the Industrial Adjudicator's authority to review disciplinary actions based on principles of natural justice, ultimately rejecting the appellant's contentions.4. The High Court highlighted the extensive litigation history of the case, noting previous remands and orders directing the Industrial Adjudicator to reevaluate evidence. The Court concluded that the Industrial Adjudicator acted within its jurisdiction in assessing the inquiry's fairness and the validity of the removal order, ultimately dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment showcases the progression of the case, the key arguments presented by the parties, and the court's reasoning in upholding the Industrial Adjudicator's decision regarding the respondent workman's removal and subsequent reinstatement.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
