MGMT OF THANJAVUR TEXTILES LTD. versus B. PURUSHOTHAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 1150 · Decided: 16-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MGMT OF THANJA VUR TEXTILES LTD. v. B. PURUSHOTHAM 1151 
/ 
T 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
" 
Leave granted. 
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the 
Madras High Court dated 9.1.1998 in Writ Appeal No. 433of1992. By that 
judgment the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed against the judg-
B 
' 
ment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5846 of 1989 dated 
.,., 
13.12.1991. The brief facts of the case are as follows : 
The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal were employees of the 
appellant Company. On the ground of alleged mis-conduct, a domestic c 
enquiry was conducted. The Manager of the Company had the enquiry 
conducted by an advocate who apart from recording the evidence also 
submitted the findings against the employees in relation to the charges. 
Based on the said Enquiry Report and the findings the Manager passed. 
an order of dismissal on 24.11.1980. Reference was sought by respondent 
a< 
Nos. 1 and 2 but the Government made reference in respect of respondent D 
.,,_J 
Nos~ 1 to 3 tci the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its award dated 
~ 
)'. 
28.4.88 came to the conclusion that the reference made by the Government 
of Tamil Nadu was not valid in regard to all the respondents inasmuch as 
the reference was not sponsored by the Union of the Workmen. The 
Labour Court, however, also gave alternative findings on the merits of the E 
case and held that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were guilty of misconduct 
but not the respondent No. 3. It also held that the respondent No. 3 was 
not entitled to any relief inasmuch as he had not sought for a reference. 
Aggrieved by the aforesaid award refusing relief to respondent Nos. 
----"' 
1 to 3, the three workmen preferred a Writ Petition being Writ Petition 
F 
> 
No. 8846/1989 in the High Court. The learned Single Judge came to the 
conclusion that the Manager ought not to have referred the enquiry to an 
-
Advocate and on that short ground the enquiry was vitiated. The learned 
Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and remanded the matter to the 
Labour Court to enable the parties to lead evidence with regard to the G 
charges framed against them. The Labour Court was also directed to 
" 
decide the question of the wages payable to the workmen. 
~ "" 
On an appeal by the Management the Division Bench held that in 
view of the concession made by the Counsel for the workmen, the reference 
of the enquiry to an Advocate was valid. However, the Division Bench H 
L 
.__ 
1152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A came to the conclusion that the Advocate ought not to have given any 
~ 
findings on the merits in relation to the misconduct of the workmen. 
According to the Division Bench of the High Court, the award was liable 
to be set aside on this ground. The Division Bench, however, did not alter 
the alternative direction given by the learned Single Judge for remand to 
B 
the Labour _Court. It is against this order of the Division Bench that the 
'. 
Management has preferred this appeal in this Court. 
• 
i· 
of-
In this appeal, Shri R. Sundaravardhan learned senior counsel for 
r 
the appellapt-Management contended before us that once the Counsel for 
the workmen conceded before the Division Bench of the High Court that 
c an Advocate could be appointed as an Enquiry Officer, the said Enquiry 
Officer was entitled to give his findings in relation to the misconduct of the 
employees. Learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of this Court 
in Khardah & Co. v. Its Workmen, (1963) 2 LLJ 452 for the proposition that 
... 
whenever an Enquiry Officer was appointed, he would be entitled to give 
I 
findings on the charges framed against the workmen. 
t. 
D 
• 
"'" 
~;e 
Learned counsel for the respondent, Shri S. Ravindra Bhat, however, 
A;c 
contended that having regard to the language of the Standing Order in this 
, ; 
" , 
case, the Manager was not permitted to appoint an Advocate as an enquiry 
~ .. 
1 
Officer. Learned counsel also contended that in that event, the Advocate 
.. ,. 
;,J ·~ 
could only record the evidence and could not have given any findings on 
... 
E 
the merits as to the misconduct of the workmen. Reliance was placed on 
the observations of this Court in Workmen in Buckingham and Camatic 
Mills, Madras v. Buckingham and Camatic Mills, Madras, (1970) Vol. 1 LLJ 
26. Our attention was also drawn by the learned counsel on both the sides 
to the decisions of this C

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