TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Supreme Court overturns Tribunal decision, directs reevaluation under Section 33.</h1> <h3>Bharat Iron Works Versus Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors</h3> Bharat Iron Works Versus Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel & Ors - 1976 AIR 98, 1976 SCR (2) 280 Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.2. Validity of the domestic enquiry and principles of natural justice.3. Concept and plea of victimisation.4. Tribunal's role in reappreciating evidence.5. Extraneous factors influencing the Tribunal's decision.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:The judgment clarifies that when an application under Section 33 is made, the Tribunal has a limited jurisdiction to see whether a prima facie case is made out in respect of the misconduct charged. If the domestic enquiry is free from defects, the Tribunal's role is confined to checking for a prima facie case or perverse findings. However, if there is a violation of natural justice, the Tribunal can independently evaluate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions on the merits.2. Validity of the domestic enquiry and principles of natural justice:The Tribunal must ensure that the domestic enquiry preceding the dismissal order is free from defects and adheres to the principles of natural justice. If the enquiry is found to be defective, the Tribunal can allow the employer to produce evidence and the workman to rebut it. In such cases, the Tribunal can make independent findings on the merits.3. Concept and plea of victimisation:Victimisation is defined as persecution, prosecution, or punishment for no real fault or guilt of the employee, often related to trade union activities. The Tribunal must exercise judicial discretion to determine if victimisation is proven. The onus of establishing victimisation lies on the employee, and it must be supported by safe and sure evidence. Mere allegations or vague suggestions are insufficient. The Tribunal must consider whether the punishment is due to gross misconduct or trade union activities.4. Tribunal's role in reappreciating evidence:The Tribunal does not sit as a court of appeal to reappreciate or reappraise the evidence. Its role is limited to examining whether a prima facie case is established or if the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence and concluding that no prima facie case was made out against the workmen.5. Extraneous factors influencing the Tribunal's decision:The Tribunal erred by considering the justifiability of the layoff, which was beyond the scope of the enquiry under Section 33. This extraneous factor influenced the Tribunal's decision to hold the management guilty of victimisation. The Tribunal's incorrect finding on victimisation led to a jurisdictional error in not allowing the applications under Section 33.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal committed serious errors by holding that no prima facie case was made out and by being influenced by extraneous factors. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, and it was directed to record appropriate orders allowing the applications under Section 33. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to pay the costs of the respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
