BHARAT IRON WORKS versus BHAGUBHAI BALUBHAI PATEL & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 10-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
280 
A 
BHARAT IRON WORKS 
v. 
BHAGUBHAI BALUBHAI PATEL & ORS. 
October 10, 1975 
B 
[A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Victimisation-Tests for determining-Labour 
Tribunal-Jurisdiction u/ s. 33. 
Ordinarily a person is victimised if he is made a victim or a scapegoat and 
is subjected to persecution, prosecution or punishment for no real fault or 
guilt of his own. If actual fault or guilt meriting punishment is established, 
C 
such action will be rid of the taini of victimisation. [283F] 
D 
G 
ii 
Victimisation may partake of various types, as for example, pressurising an 
employee to leave the union or union activities, treating an employee 
in 
a 
discriminatqry manne_r or inflicting a grossly monstrous punishment which no 
rational person would impose upon an employee and the like. Victimisation 
is a serious charge by an employee against an employer and, therefore, it must 
be properly and adequately pleaded. 
The charge must not be vague or indefi-
nite. The fact that there is a union espousing the cause of the employees in 
legitimate trade union activiey and an employee is a membor or active office-
bearer thereof, is per se no crucial instance. 
[283G] 
The onus of establishing a plea ef victimisation will be upon the i>erson 
pleading it. Since a charge of victimisation is a serious matter rellecting to 
a degree, upon the subjective attitude of the employer evidenced by acts and 
conduct, these have to he established by safe and sure evidence. Mere allega-
tions, vague suggestions and insinuations are not enough. All particulars of the 
charge brought out, if helieved. must be weighed by the Tribunal and a con-
clusion should be reached on a totality of the evidence produced. 
[284C-DJ 
Victimisation must be directly connected with the activities of the con-
cerned employee inevitably leading to the penal action without the necessary 
proof. of valid charge against him. 
[284DJ 
If in the opinion of the Tribunal gross misconduct is established as required 
on legal evidence either in a fairly conducted domestic enquiry or before the 
Tribunal on merits, the plea of victimisation will not carry the case of the 
employee any furthe· 
A nr·V''d mi,conduct is antithesis of victimisation as 
understood in industrial relations. This is not to say that the Tribunal has 
no jurisdiction to interfere with an order of dismissal on proof of victimisa-
tion. f284Gl 
Jn the instant case the appellant charged the respondent workmen 
with 
assaulting three new workers of. the company who were employed by it after 
a lay off of the permanent workers. In the domestic inquiry the respondents 
pleaded victimisation on the part of the employer for their trade union activities. 
They were, however, dismissed from service. Since an industrial dispute was 
pending before the Tribunal the· appellant made applications under ss. 33(2) 
and (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Three of ~he respondents were 
protected workmen. 
Even after finding that the domestic inquiry w~s in order 
the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the findings of the inquiry officer 
were perverse and not bona fide. 
On the refusal of the Tribunal to 
grant 
approval and permission for the dismissal of the workmen the appellant moved 
the High Court under Art. 226 9f the Constitution, which petition was summarily 
dismissed by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
~ ' 
' ' 
,. 
• 
.. 
'v 
'1: 
I· 
... 
"' 
. --
.. 
• 
BHARAT IRON WORKS v. B. B. PATEL (Goswami,!.) 
281 
HELD : The High Court was not correct in dismissing writ application 
in limine. The Tribunal committed an error of jurisdiction in not allowing the 
applications made by the appellant. 
( 1) On the principles of law laid down by this Court, even though there was 
no defect in the domestic inquiry ~he Tribunal was entitled to examine the evidence 
in the domestic inquiry jn order to find out whether a prima facie case was 
made out or if the findings were perverse. The Tribunal was. however, not 
.competent to re-appreciate or reappraise the evidence. The Tribunal had no 
jurisdiction in this case to act as a court of appeal as if in a criminal case and 
to interfere with the findings of the domestic inquiry. In view of the one way 
,evidence against the respondents with regard to the incident and in the absence 
of any denial by them by examining themselves before the inquiry officer and 
offering themselves fo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.