LexANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA (P) LTD. versus ITS WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' 3 S.C.R. QOURT REPORTS 601 ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA (P) LTD. v. ITS WORKMEN (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO, and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) biduatrial Dispute-Discharge of workmen-Domestic e1'quiry in accordance with the principle of natural justice- Extent <Jf jurisdiction of industrial tribunal-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), s. JO (1) (D). The respondent was working as a Reporter of the Ananda Bazar Patrika. The Chief Reporter of the Ananda Bazar Patrika proceeded on leave. Before going on leave, he appointed •M' to act as Chief Reporter temporarily during his ·absence. The respondent was not satisfied with this arrange· ment and so be began to ignore the assignments allotted to him by the Acting Chief Reporter. The Acting Chief Reporter complained to the Managing Director that the respondent was ignoring the assignments allotted to him on the basis of the above-mentioned complaint an enquiry was held against the respondent. It was held day to day and the respondent cross. examined the witnesses at length. The enquiry officer did not allow the Editor to be examined on behalf of the respondent on the ground that he was not a material witness. The Enquiry Officer found that the charge had been proved against tho res· pondent. The Management accepted the enquiry report and discharged him fr0m the service. · The aforesaid dispute between the appellant and respon· dent was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry was conducted not in accordance with the principles of natural justice as the respondent was not allowed to examine a single witness. The Labour Court directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent. Held that at the domestic enquiry it is competent to the enquiry officer to refuse to examine a witness or to disa!Jow a question if he honestly comes to the conclusion that either of \hem are irrelevant for the purpose of enquiry, 1963 1969 Anand• B-ocar P•lrik• (P) L1<1. y, WorJm1n 602 SUPREME COURT RBPOR TB [1964] VOL. (2) that the enquiry officer cannot be said to have acted mala fid• and contrary to the principles of natural j1Utiec in refu· sing to examine the Editor as witness for the respondent or in disallowing certain questions put by the respondent to the witnesses on the @round that these were irrelevant for the purpose of enquiry. (3) that once it is found that the domestic enquiry is fair, without malice and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the conclusions of the said enquiry are not perverse then the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the dispute between the .parties, and to enquire whe- ther the findings recorded by the domestic tribunal are right or wrong. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 633 of 1962. · Appeal by special leave from the award dated December 8, 1959, of the Second Lab1mr Court, West Bengal, in Case No. VIII-C-226 of 1958. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. Baldev Meht,a, for the appellant. N. 0. Chatterjee, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, 8. 0. Agarwala and D. P. Singh, for the re11pondents. 1963. May 7. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.AJENDRAGADKAR J.-This appeal arises from an industrial dispute between the appellant, the · Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd., and the respondents, its workmen. The appellant is a private limited. company and carries on the business of printing and publishing newspapers, namely, 'Ananda Bazar Pat- rika' which is a Bengali Dailv, 'Desh' which is a Bengali Weekly, and 'Hindustan Standard' which is an English daily newspaper. Mr. Pulakesh De Saro kar was appointed by the management of the appel- lant as Journalist ill March, 1940, and has been ii S.C.R. SUPRENIE COURT REPORTS 603 working with the · appellant since then until he was discharged from service by the appellant on May 15, 1958. The Union of the appellant's employees took up this discharge and raised an industrial dispute about it. In was urged by the Union that the dis· charge of Mr. Sarkar's services was illegal and that he was entitled to reinstatement and/or compensa- tion. This dispute was referred by the Government of West Bengal for adjudication to the Second Labour Court on September 25, 1958. By its award pronounced on December 8, 1959, the Labour Court has directed the appellant to reinstate Mr. Sarkar and pay him his emoluments for the period of his forced une
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.