KHARDAH CO. LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 02-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1961 
5o6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL .. 
KHARDAH CO. LTD. 
v. 
THEIR WORKMEN 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, 
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Diami'8al of workman after domutic 
enquiry-Failure of enquiry officer to· record finding-Power of 
Induatrial Tribunal-If can discard the enquiry and deciik 
on merit!. 
· 
The appellant dismissed one of its workmen on a domestic 
enquiry held by its Manager who did not record any findings, 
took some of the evidence in the absence of the workman and 
found him guilty of misconduct under Rule 14 (c) (i) and 
(Tiii) of the Standing Orders. The Industrial Tribunal held 
that the dismissal was unjustified and directed the appellant 
to reinstate the employee. The respondent Union's case was 
that the dismissed workman, who was the Organising Secretary 
of the union, was dismissed by the appellant mala fide with the 
purpose of victimhing him for his trade union activities. 
The 
dispute centered round the question whether the strike which 
the dismissed workman was charged as 
having instigated was 
really instigated by him or ·was the spontaneous result of the 
treatment meted out by the appellant to another workman 
who was sick and fainted on the day the strike started. The 
case of the appellant was that this latter workman was not 
present on that day at alJ. 
This was belied by the record 
and the Industrial Tribunal without attaching any importance 
to the domestic enquiry held by the Manager dealt with the 
merits of the dispute itself and found in favour of the 
respondent, holding that the management was unjustified in 
dis.missing the workman on tl1e report of the Manager which 
was neither fair nor honest. On bellalf of the appellant reliance 
was placed on the decision of this Court in Indian Iron & 
St•el Oo. Ltd. v, Their Workmen and it was contended that the 
Industrial Tribunal was in error 
in 
interfering with the 
decision of the management. 
H•M the Industrial Tribunal was right in discarding the 
domestic enquiry. Although 
this Court 
has consistently 
a s.c.R.. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
507 
refrained from interfering with 
the cmnclusions of domestic 
enquiries in industrial matters unless one of the four tests laid 
down in Indian Iron & Steel Co. 
Ltd. v. Their Workmen 
was satisfied, the essential ba,i< on which this view is founded 
is that the domestic enquiry 
must be 
conducted fairly 
and properly in conformity with the principles of natural 
justice. The evidence on which the charges are sought to be 
proved against the workman must normally be led 
in his 
presence. The procedure of recording statements of witnesses 
ex parte and thereafter producing the witne3Ses for cross-exami-
nation, unless there are compelling reasons to do so, must be 
discouraged. 
Departmental enqmnes under Art. 311 of the Consti-
tution where the question of motive i' hardly relevant do not 
stand on the same footing as those in industrial enquiries 
where the question of bona fol.•• or mua fides of the employee 
is tJftcn in issue. 
Indian Iron & Steel Co. v. Their 
Workmen, (1958) 1 
LiL.J. 260, explained. 
State of My•are v. S. S. Makapur, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 943; 
M/•. Kuaram Cauan Mills Lid. v. Gangadhar, [196~] Vol. 
2 S.C.R. 809, 
and Union Territory of Tripura v. Gopal 
Ohandtr Dutla 
Ohoudhri, [1963] 
Supp. 1 S.C.R. 266, 
referred to. 
The failure of the Manager to record any findings after 
holding the enquiry was a serious infirmity in the enquiry and 
it is not for this Court to go into the evidence to decide 
whether the dismissal was justified. 
It is the duty of the eltquiry officer in an industrial 
enquiry 
to 
record 
clearly 
and 
precisely 
his 
conclusions and to indicate briefly the reasons therefor so 
that the Industrial Tribunal can judge whether they are 
basically erroneous or perverse. 
Although the Industrial Tribunal should not as a normal 
procedure allow evidence to be led by one party in absence of 
the other or admit evidence after the case has been fully 
argued unless both the parties agree, the mere calling for the 
authenticated recorcl to see whether the workman was the 
Organisiag Secretary could not amount to a breach of the 
rule. 
1911 
~hcrdcli C•. Lia. 
... 
Tlui• w .. 4,.,. 
, K"4riti.1r:Ci: Lid, 
,, ' "v·.1..:. 
·rll1ir Wl1km1n 
,.,,_>-<!· !'< 
"."~!°·' 
~01~ 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS(l964]VOL. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil ApI'eal 
No. 705 of 1962. · 
· ' · ' · 
Appeal by special leave from the A

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