CHOLAN ROADWAYS LTD. versus G. THIRUGNANASAMBANDAM

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1123 · Decided: 17-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CHOLAN ROADWAYS LTD. 
A 
v. 
G. THIRUGNANASAMBANDAM 
DECEMBER 17, 2004 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Labour laws : 
Industrial Disputes Act, J947-Sections 33(2)(b) and JO-Grant of 
approval of dismissal order-Jurisdiction of Industrial tribunal-Scope of-
C 
Held : Jurisdiction of the tribunal is limited and cannot be equated with 
section JO-Tribunal has to see whether prima facie case against delinquem 
employee is made out on the evidence adduced in the domestic enquiry-
On facts, refusal of approval of dismissal order of driver by tribunal on 
the ground of non-examination of passengers when evidence adduced during D 
domestic enquiry showing negligence of driver-Single Judge and Division 
Bench of High Court upheld the order-On appeal held : Courts below 
failed to pose unto themselves correct questions-Tribunal did not apply 
the principle of res ipsa loquitur and took into consideration an irrelevant 
fact that the passengers of the bus were mandatorily required to pe 
examined-It also failed to apply standard of proof- 'preponderance of E 
probability' in relation to domestic enquiry-Hence, order of tribunal set 
aside and tribunal directed to grant approval to the dismissal ordet-
Constitution of India, J950-Article 136. 
Maxims : 
Res ipsa loquitur-Principle of-Discussed. 
A bus met with an accident resulting in death of seven passengers. 
Branch Manager of the appellant-Roadways Company conducted 'on 
the spot inquiry and submitted a report to the effect that the respondent-
driver of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner. There-
after·, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent 
and charges were framed. Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty 
of misconduct and the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from serv-
F 
G 
ices. Appellant filed an application under section 33(2)(b) of the Indus-
H 
1123 
1124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A trial Disputes Act, 1947 for grant of approval of the dismissal order. 
Presiding Officer rejected the grant of approval on the ground of failure \ 
to observe principles of natural justice by not examining the passengers. 
Appellant filed writ petition challenging the order. Single Judge and 
also the Division Bench of High Court dismissed the same. Hence the 
B 
present appeal. 
Appellant-Roadways Company contended that the evidence clearly 
shows that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner 
resulting in the death of seven passengers; that in the enquiry of this 
nature it was not necessary to examine the passengers of the bus; and 
C that the appellant not only afforded an opportunity to the respondent 
to cross-examine the witnesses examined on their behalf but also gave 
opportunity ·to examine defence witnesses, as such the principles of 
natural justice were followed. 
D 
Respondent-driver contended that in the domestic enquiry the 
E 
alleged misconduct of the respondent cannot be said to have been proved 
inasmuch as no finding has been recorded as regards the culpability of 
the respondent vis-a-vis commission of the said misconduct; and that 
only because an accident had taken place, the same by itself in absence 
of strict proof thereof cannot be a ground to infer that misconduct on 
the part of the respondent stood proved. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under 
F Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes At, 1947 is a limited one. The 
jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2)(b) cannot be 
equated with that of Section 10 of the Act. While exercising jurisdiction 
under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the Industrial Tribunal is required 
to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out as regard the 
G 
validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry held against the delin-
quent, keeping in view the fact that if the permission or approval is 
granted, the discharge or dismissal order passed against the delinquent 
employee would be liable to be challenged in an appropriate proceeding 
before the Tribunal in terms of the 1947 Act. [1131-D-E; 1133-F-G) 
H 
Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Bane1jee, AIR (1958) SC 79, referred to. 
,I 
.r 
CHOLAN ROADWAYS LTD. v. G. THIRUGNANASAMBANDAM 
1125 
1.2. The principle of Evidence Act has no application to a domestic A 
enquiry. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the prin-
ciple of natural justice are required to be complied with in a domestic 
enqui

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