LexEMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF WEST BOKARO COLLIERY OF M/S. TISCO LTD. versus THE CONCERNED WORKMAN, RAM PRAVESH SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' t [2008] 2 S.C.R. 247 . ___,.,,. EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF A WEST BOKARO COLLIERY OF M/S. T-ISCO LTD. v. THE CONCERNED WORKMAN, RAM PRAVESH SINGH (Civil Appeal No. 892 of 2008) FEBRUARY 1, 2008 B ~ (ASHOK BHAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.) Labour Law: Disciplinary proceedings - Initiated against delinquent c workman - For indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour - Dismissal from service as a result of domestic inquiry- Labour Court holding the domestic inquiry as fair and proper - But, relying on acquittal of workman in criminal case, setting aside D order of dismissal and directing his reinstatement holding that Management failed to substantiate charges beyond "'-. reasonable doubt - HELD: Where two views are possible on the evidence on record, Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in substituting its opinion and conclusion for those of the domestic tribunal - Standard of proof in criminal case and in B departmental proceedings is different - Acquittal in criminal case would.not operate as bar in drawing up disciplinary .., proceedings against the delinquent - Order of Labour Court set aside and that of disciplinary authority restored. A . The respondent-workman was dismissed from F service as charges of leaving the work without permission and indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour with a superior as well as a coworker, leveled against him were found to have been established in the domestic inquiry. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry G ,., -. conducted by the Management was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. However, relying upon the order of acquittal of the workman in the criminal case, the Labour Court set aside the order of 247 ·: H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A dismissal and. ordered his reinstatement with 50% back ·wages holding that the Management had failed to substantiate the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Management having remained unsuccessful in the writ petition and the consequent Letters Patent Appeal, filed B the instant appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 In a case where two views are possible on the evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal should c be very slow in substituting its opinion for that of the domestic tribunal and coming to a different conclusion. [para 20] [255-F, G] Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) vs. A. T. Mane (2005) 3 SCC 254; U.P State Road Transport Corporation D vs. Vinod Kumar 2007 (13) SCALE 690 - relied on. The Workmen of Mis. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management & Ors. [(1973) 1 SCC 813] and South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union vs. E Kera/a State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) · 5 sec 201 - cited. 1.2 It has repeatedly been held by this Court that the acquittal in a criminal case would not operate as a bar for drawing up of disciplinary proceedings against a F delinquent. It is well settled principle of law that yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from the one in disciplinary proceedings. While the standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof in departmental proceedings G is preponderance of probabilities. [para 19] [255-B, C, D] 1.3 In the instant case, the Labour Court has set aside the report of the Enquiry Offic:er and the order of dismissal passed by the Punishing Authority by observing· that the charges against the respondent were not proved beyond H reasonable doubt and interfered wifh the findings l- i EMP IN REL. TO THE MGMT OF W.B.C. OF M/S. TISCO 249 LTD. v. THE CONCERNED WORKMAN recorded by the domestic Tribunal as if it was the appellate A tribunal. There was evidence present on record regarding indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour of the respondent towards his superiors. The witnesses who were present at the scene of occurrence have unequivocally deposed about the misbehaviour of the 8 respondent towards his superiors. Their evidence has been discarded by the Tribunal by observing that in the absence of independent evidence, the statements of the workmen who were present at the scene of occurrence could not be believed. The Labour Court fell in error in G discarding the evidence produced by the Management only because the independent witnesses were not produced .. Statements of the fellow workmen had established th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.