TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... afterwards to take them to their respective racks. On 4th of August 1984, a charge sheet was issued against the respondent on charges of major misconduct, namely, instigation, insubordination and using of abusive and filthy languages against his superiors and dilatory tactics, which are major misdemeanor in terms of Section "L" Appendix "D" of the certified standing orders of the appellant- Company, which are reproduced below: Appendix "D" Clause (2) Major Misdemeanor (i) Willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior, (iv) Willful slowing down in performance of work (xi) Commission of any act subversive of good behavior or of the discipline of the company (xxix) Instigation, incitement, abetment or furtherance of the forgoing punishable as major misdemeanor 4. By the charge sheet, the respondent was called upon to submit his explanation and he was suspended from service with payment of subsistence allowance pending inquiry. The respondent filed his written explanation on 6th of August, 1984 to the charge sheet which being found unsatisfactory, an inquiry committee was constituted with Mr. P.K.Mukherjee (the company lawyer) as the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out the orders of his superiors. 6. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, after remand, the Vth Industrial Tribunal heard the matter on the basis of the same evidence on record and by an order dated 31st of October 2003 held that the respondent was illegally terminated by the appellants and the dismissal order was not justified and hence liable to be set aside. It also directed the reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages. The Tribunal held that the appellant had failed to establish by cogent evidence that the respondent had developed the habit of being negligent in his duties and using abusive language. It was further held that the charge sheet had not disclosed the specific abusive language used by the respondent and without recording such language, the charge sheet was bad. 7. The appellants subsequently challenged the aforesaid order of the Vth Industrial Tribunal by filing a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 4th of October, 2004 without assigning any reasons of its own. It passed the order on the basis of the findings of the Tribunal and held that the court in exercise of its jurisdiction was not authorised to re-appreciate the finding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the judgment of the High Court as well as of the Industrial Tribunal and restoration of the order of dismissal passed against the respondent. 10. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants were strongly contested by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent was denied a fair hearing and was dismissed in violations of the principles of natural justice. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that the charge sheet did not contain the specific abusive language and thus it was difficult for him to defend his case. He further argued that the respondent was not furnished with the list of witnesses and copy of the documents to be treated as evidences and materials on which the management was to rely and he was also denied a chance of being represented by a lawyer or a representative who is equipped with legal background during the enquiry proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that the appellants had not presented before the court any documentary evidence to prove that he had on earlier occasion misconducted himself and was thus in a habit of disobeying hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not uncommon to find that the same department which initiates the matter also decides it, therefore, at times, department fraternity and loyalty militates against the concept of fair hearing. In Hari Khemu Gawali v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police [AIR 1956 SC 559] an externment order was challenged on the ground that since the police department which heard and decided the case was the same, the element of departmental bias vitiated administrative action and this Court rejected the challenge on the ground that so long as two functions (initiation and decision) were discharged by two separate officers, though they were affiliated to the same department, there was no bias. In The General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union v. The Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC 201], it was held that the inquiry had been conducted by the Assistant Personnel Manager of the Corporation and the Union raised an industrial dispute in which Labour Court set aside the inquiry on the ground of institutional bias as the Enquiry Officer was part of the same institution and had also made certain uncorroborated remarks against the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arge sheet was bad as it did not mention specifically the abusive language used by the respondent. In this connection, reliance can be placed on a decision of this Court in Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen [(1959) 2 LLJ 666 (SC)] wherein it was held that before the management could dismiss its workman, it must hold a proper domestic enquiry into the alleged misconduct of such a workman and such an enquiry must begin with the supply of a specific charge sheet to him. In the instant case, on a perusal of the charge sheet it is evident that the charges laid down are precise and specific in nature along with the relevant provision of the standing order and neatly lays down the consequences thereof. We do not also find from the said charge sheet that there was any patent or latent vagueness involved and they are unintelligible. This is clearly evident from the explanation furnished by the respondent dated 6th of August, 1984 where he clearly denied all the charges and also mentioned the name of the four appellant-witnesses who were examined in the enquiry proceedings subsequently. This is a clear indication that the respondent was fully aware of the charges and even their spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and the court held that there was violation of the principles of natural justice as the employee was not allowed to cross-examine the officers who deposed orally before the Inquiry Officer. In the present case, the Inquiry Officer had sent due notice and postponed the date of hearing various times with an intention to permit the respondent to present his case, nevertheless the respondent did not present himself except on three days and ultimately the Enquiry Officer conducted the inquiry ex parte. Therefore, this was not a case where the respondent was not afforded a chance to cross examine the witnesses done by the prosecution witnesses rather it seems to be a case where the respondent, had waived his right to cross examine by absenting himself from the inquiry on the grounds that he was not permitted legal representation nor was furnished with the documents or list of evidences upon which the management was relying. In Kalindi & Ors. v. Tata Locomotive & Engg.Co.Ltd. [AIR 1960 SC 914], this court held that a representation through a lawyer in any administrative proceeding is not considered as an indispensable part of natural justice as oral hearing is not included in the minima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es of natural justice held that - "it is yet another exception to the application of the principles of natural justice. Where on the admitted or undisputed facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not insist on the observance of the principles of natural justice because it would be futile to order its observance." 17. In Karnataka SRTC vs. S.G.Kotturappa, [(2005) 3 SCC 409], this Court again observed as follows- " where the respondent had committed repeated acts of misconduct and had also accepted minor punishment he is not entitled to the principles on natural justice as it would be a mere formality, that too misconduct in the case of a daily wager. The question as to what extent principles of natural justice are required to be complied within a particular case would depend upon the factual situation obtained in each case and the principles cannot be applied in a vacuum. They cannot be put in a straight jacket formula." In the present case, in the letter dated 22nd of November, 1985, the respondent had admitted all the charges and had stated unequivocally that his behavior was due to mental sickness and prayed for s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt in Management of M/s. Eastern Electric & Trading Co. v s. Baldev Lal [(1975) 4 SCC 684] observed that the misbehaviour by an employee at one inquiry and refusal to attend the next inquiry held even after adjournment if the employee did not appear in the domestic inquiry, the ex parte inquiry held by the Inquiry Officer cannot be vitiated and must be held to be valid. 20. In The Chartered Bank, Bombay vs. The Chartered Bank Employees' Union [1960 (3) SCR 441], this Court observed that the tribunal or the court can interfere with the decision of the management and industrial adjudication and it would be entitled to examine the substance of the matter and decide whether the termination was in fact discharge simpliciter. If the Industrial court is satisfied that the order of discharge is punitive in nature, that it is mala fide, or that it amounts to victimization or unfair labour practice, the court or the industrial tribunal is competent to set aside the order of dismissal issued by the management and direct reinstatement of the employee. 21. Similar is the view expressed in The Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen & Anr. [1964 (2) SCR 125]. This Court observed in the matter of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and did not correct the erroneous order of the Labour Court which, if allowed to stand, would certainly result in miscarriage of justice." Similarly in L.K.Verma v. H.M.T. Ltd (2006) LLR 296 (SC), it was observed that - " as regards the quantum of the punishment is concerned suffice it to say that verbal abuse has been held to be sufficient for inflicting a punishment of dismissal. Once the appellant accepted that he had made utterances which admittedly lack civility and he also threatened a superior officer it was for him to show that he later on felt remorse therefore and should have tendered an apology". 23. From a perusal of these observations, made in the aforesaid decisions of this Court as noted herein above, it is crystal clear that the general trend of judicial decisions is to minimize the interference when the punishment is not harsh and definitely for charges that are leveled against the respondent and in the instant matter, dismissal is absolutely not shocking to the conscience of the court. 24. The learned Single Judge also misused the power vested in him by remanding back the matter to the....