LexEMPLOYERS OF FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO. LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A EMPLOYERS OF FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO. B c D E r G R LTD. v. THEIR WORKMEN August 22, 1967 [M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J Industrial Dispute-Dismissal of workman afte'r domestic en- quiry-Irregularities. al!eged-lnte'rference b11 Tribunal, if justified. The driver of the delivery van of the appellant..:ompany, was entrusted with some tyres for delivery at various addresses and he failed to account for two of the tyres. After investigation, a domestic enquiry was held and the minutes of the enquiry were submitted to the Manager who gave notice to the driver to show cause why he should not be dismissed. The driver showed cause but the Mana- ger ordered his dismissal. The respondent-union of the. workers then raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal holding that the enquiry was opposed to principles of natural justice and that the conelusion was perverse, In appeal by the Company to this Court, Held: Ordinarily in all cases in which the facts . are in con- troversy the procedure to be followed is, that before a delinquent is asked anything, all the evidence against him must be led. The situation may be different when the accusation is based on a matter of record or, the facts are admitted, in which case, it may be permissible to draw his attention to the evidence on record and ask for his explanation. Even in such a case, the delinquent should be asked whether he would like. to make a statement first or wait till the evidence is over, but failure to do so does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry unless prejudice is caused or he had objected to the particular course that was followed. Ultimate- ly, it is a question of justice and fair-play depending on the facts of each case. [311A-D] In the present case the minutes showed that the driver had every opportunity to controvert the case against him, and to prove his case, and that he was never at a disadvantage. All that the Tribunal could do was to see that the domestic enquiry was properly conduct- ed, and, since it was so conducted, the Tribunal was In error In exer- cising appellate powers by coming to a different conclusion. [310E; 3!2G] Tata Oi! Mills Co. v. The Workmen. f!9631 2 L.L.J.78; Sur Ena- mel & Stamping Works v. The Workmen. tl964] 2 S.C.R. 165; [1963] 2 LL.J. 367; Meenglas Tea Estate v. Its Workmen, [1964) 3 S.C.R. 616; [1963) 2 L.L.J. 392; Associated Cement Companies v. Their Work. me'!· [1964] 3 S.C.R. 632; [1963] 2 L.L.J. 396 and The Central Bank of India v. Karunamoy Banerjee [1968) 1 S.C.R. 251; referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 515 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated November 23, 1964, of the Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh in Industrial Dispute No. 5 of 1964. I07 308 8Ul'SllOl ,COUBT BBPOllTS (1968] 1 s.0.11. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor<lenera/, Rame.shwar Nath, Mohinder A Narain and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. B. R. Dolia, E. C. Agarwala and P. c. Agrawa/a, for the res- pondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BidayatuHlll, J. The present appeal arises from the award of B the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. by which the dismissal of one Subramaniam, van driver in the em- ploy of the Firestones Tyre & Rubber Co. (P) Ltd., after a domes- tic enquiry was set aside and the Company was ordered to rein- state him but not to pay him his back wages. The reference in which this decision was rendered was made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on February 7, 1964. The folldwing are the circumstances C leading up to it. Subramaniam was a van driver with the Firestone Tyre & Rub- ber Co. fr001 1953. One of his duties as a van driver was the trans- portation for delivery of the products of the Company. On May 28, 1963, Subramaniam set out to deliver tyres covered by six invoices to diverse addresses. Two of the invoices (Nos. 13815 and 13816) D were concerned with eight tyres (4 tyres per invoice) of the specifi- cation 8.25 x 20 Tran. H.D.Nyl. 12-PR. Subramaniam took deli- very of the tyres and signed the six invoices. After locking the tyres in his van with a key which he claims never left his possession, he set out with one M. V. Das (packer/scooter driver) by hls side in the driver's cabin. This was soon after the lunch break. .At about 3.15 p.m. Subramaniam telephoned to the office of the Com- E pany that two tyres from
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.