CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI versus SHRI PRAKASH CHAND JAIN

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 20-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. 735 
A 
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
V. 
SHRI PRAKASH CHAND JAIN 
August 20, 1968 
[V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), s. 33(2) (b)-Powers of 
Industrial Tribunal Under section-Interference with findings of domestic 
enquiry justified when 'findings· ar.e perverse-Tests of perversity-Hear-
say evidence not legal evidence even in domestic enquiries. 
The respondent was an employee of the appeUant. After a domestic 
enquiry in respect of alleged misconduct he was dismissed. As an indus-
trial dispute was pending an application was made to the 
Industrial 
Tribunal under s. 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
The 
Tribunal held that though the enquiry was fair, the findings 
of the 
Enquiry Officer welre perverse and therefore it did not give its approval , 
to the order of dismissal. 
By special leave the appellant came to 
this 
Court, contending _that since the enquiry was held to be fair the Tribunal 
had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the 
Enquiry Officer. 
HELD : (i) Earlier decisions of this Court make it clear that when 
an Industrial Tribunal is asked to give its approval to an order of dis-
missal under s, 33(2) (b) of the Act, it can disregard the findings given 
by the, Enquiry Officer only if the :findings are perverse. The findings are 
petverse when either they are not based on legal evidence or they are 
such as no reasonable person could have arrived at on the basis of mate-
rial before the domestic tribunal. [739 G-740 CJ 
Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Company Ltd. v. Dasappa 
(B) (Binny Mills 
Labour Union) & 0'9. [1960] II L.L.J. 
39, Lord 
Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen, f1961] 3 S.C.R. 
204, 
Stat~ of 
Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 25, applied. 
(ii) A domestic tribunal though not bound by the' technical rules 
about evidence contained in the Indian Evidenee Act cannot ignore subs-
tantive rules which would form part of principles of natural justice. The 
principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements 
made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held 
and that statements made behind the back of the person charged are not 
to be treated as substantive evidence, is one of such basic principles which 
a domestic tribunal cannot disregard. 
The previous statement of a witness 
is not substantive evidence unless affirmed as truthful by the witness when 
actually examined in the presence of the workman charged. 
A finding 
by the 
domestic tribunal 
based not on 
substantive evidence but 
on 
hearsay, is perverse, because hearsay is not legal evidence. [743 C-E; 745 
G-HJ 
Khardah Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 506, State of 
Mysore v. S. S. Makapur, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 943 and M/s. Kesoram Cotton 
Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 809, relied on. 
H 
(iii) In the present case the findings of the Enquiry Officer were 
rightly held by the Industrial Tribunal to be perverse as they were not 
basqp on legal evidence and were not justified by the material 
before 
him. [749 C-El 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] I S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 498 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated July 10, 1964 
of the Industrial Tribunal Delhi in O.P. No. 79 of 1962. 
Bishan Narain, P. C. Bharrari, J. B. Dadachanji and C. L. 
A 
Chopra, for the appellant. 
B 
H. R. Gokha/e, Janardan Sharma and T. R. Bluisin, for the 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bhargava, J. The Central Bank of India Ltd., New Delhi, 
has filed this appeal, by special leave, challenging an order of 
the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, refusing to accord approval to an 
order of dismissal of the respondent, Prakash Chand Jain. under 
section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter refer-
red to as "the Act"). A charge-sheet, containing two charges, 
was serve<l on the respondent on 21st July, 1961 in order to 
initiate fonually an enquiry for the purpose of taking disciplinary 
action against him. The two charges framed were as follows :-
"!. On 14-1-1960, a sum of 
Rs. 30,400/- was 
paid to Mr. P. C. Jain by the Assistant Cashier Mr. 
Nand Kishore out of the cheque No. 43004 dated 
14-1-60 drawn by Messrs Moo! Chand 
Hari Kishan 
for Rs. 63,000/-. Taking this money Mr. P. C. Jain 
on the same day i.e. 14-1-1960 left for Muzaffarnagar 
in compan

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