LexDELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. versus LUDH BUDH SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. v. LUDH BUDH SINGH January 11, 1972 [C. A. VAID!ALINGAM AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] 29 J11dusiriul Disputes Act ( 14 of 1947), ss. 10 antl 33-Donze.5lic en~ quiry by 1na11age111.ent-Jurisdiction of Tribunal to interefere u•ith findings and con~ider additio11al evjtienc:e. An inquiry was held into certain allegations of n1isconduct against the respondent, who was an employee of the appellant, and the Enquiry Officer made a report holding that the allegations had been proved. The appellant accepted the report and decided to dismiss him. Since an industrial dispute bet\veen the appellant and its workmen was pending beforo the Industrial Tribunal, an application was made under s .. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Tribunal for permission to dismiss the respondent. Before the Tribunal neither party examined wit- nesses and tho appellant relied only on the enq~iry proceedings. After nrguments, the Tribunal reserved judgment. The appellant, then filed an application praying that if the enquiry proceedings were found to be defective the appellant should be given an opportunity. to adduce evidence to justify the action proposed to be taken. The Tribunal did not deal with the application but held that the enquiry proceedings had not been properly conducted and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not in accordance . with the evidence before him, and refused permission for disn1issing the respondent. Disn1issing the appeal to this Court. HELD: (1) The Industrial Tribunal had to consider whether the appcJlant had made out a prilna facie case for the permission asked for, and for that purpose, it was justified in considering the nature of the allegations, the findings, and the evidence before the Enquiry Officer. The jurisdictiol} of the Tribunal in such matters is to consider whether the :findi!lgs are such that no reasonable person wou1d arrive at them on the materials before the Enquiry Officer, or, whether the findings were not su'pported by any legal evidence at all. If the Tribunal held that the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer could not have been arrived at by a reasona"le person, the Tribunal has juris- diction to interfere with such a finding, on the ground that it is perverse. [38 C; 42 E-H; 43 A 1 In the present case, (a) the finding against the respondent was re- col'ded by the Enquiry Officer ignori.ng material admissions, bv witnesses. in favour of the respondent. It is not a question of mere appreciation of evidence but really recording a finding contrary to evidence, [4J DJ (b) The Enquiry Officer found the ·respondent guilty of acts of vio- lence from his mere presence in the crowd outside the premises of the appellant. f43 E-FI (c) The Enquiry Officer contrary to the rule of burden of proof, held that since the respondent had not adduced any evidence in his defence it was not opcll to him to contend that he was not responsible for the acts of <lestri1ction and damage [43 F-G] 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972) 3 S.C.R. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal was justified In concludina that the appellant had not made out a Prima facle Ctlst. [44 Al Deihl Cloth & General 'Mills Co. v. Ganesh Dutt and Ors, C.A. No. 982/67 Dt. 17-12-71, Martin Burn Ltd. v. R. N. Banerjee, [19581 S.C.R. 514, Lord Krishna Textile Mills v. Its Workmen, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 204 and Central Bank of India Ltd., New Delhi v .. Shri Prakash Chand lain, [19691 1. S.C.R. 735, followed. · ( 2) In proceedings before the Tribunal either on a reference under s. 10 or by way of an application under s, 33 of the Act, tb6 jurisdiction of the Ttibunal is as follows : · (a) If no domestic inquiry bad been held by the management or if the management makes it clear that it does not rely upon any domestic inquiry that may have been held by it, it is entitled straight away to adduce evidence before the Tribunal and justify its action.The Tribunal is bound to consider that evidence on merits, and, in such a case it is not necessary for the Tribunal to consider the validity of the domestic inquiry, [54 G-Hl (b) If a domestic inquiry had been held, it is open to the manage· ment to rely upon it in the first instance, and alternatively, and without prejudice to its plea that the inquiry was proper, simultaneously adduce additional evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. In such a case no infe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.