LexTATA OIL MILLS CO. LTD. versus ITS WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
7S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 555 TATA OIL MILLS CO. LTD. v. ITS WORKMEN IP B. GAJl!M>RAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO AND K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.] IndustTiaL Dispute-Assault on co-employee-Whether Standing Order 22(viii) attracted-Domestic enquiry-Findings binding unless shown to be Perverse or enidence lacking- Crimina! Trial also'pending-Failure to stay enquiry, if vitiates enquiTj/-Standing Order 22(viii). On a report that R and M, both timployees of the appellant waylaid A, another employee and assaulted him outside the factory, the appellant held an enquiry ang sought approval for the dismissal of R and M from the Industrial Tribunal, before which an industrial dispute was pending. The Tribunal approv- ed the dismissal of R but not that of M. Thereupon R was di,:- missed. The respondent raised an industrial dispute in rEgard to the propriety and validity of the said dismissal. On refen. ence of this dispute, the Industrial Tribunal held that the assault could be treated as a private matter between R and A with which the appellant was not concerned and as a result Standing Order 22(viii) could not be invoked against R, and it ordered the reinstatement of R. On appeal by special !€ave: Held: (i) that It would be unreasonable to include within Standing Order 22(viii) any riotous behaviour without the factory which was the result of purely private and individual dispute and in course of which tempers of both the contestants become hot. In order that standin!ll order 22(viii) may be attracted, the appellant should be able to show that the dis- orderly or riotous behaviour had some rational connection with the employment of the assailant and the victim. (ii) In the present case the assault by R on A was not a purely private or individual matter but was referable to the difference of opinion between the two in regard to the introduc- tion of incentive bonus scheme and that cannot be said to be outside the purview of standing order 22(viii). (iii) The Tribunal was in error in coming< to the conclu- sion that the enquiry suffered from the infirmity that it wa~ conducted contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is true that if it appears that by refusing to adjourn the hearing at lhe instance of charge-sheeted workmen, the Enquiry Officer failed· to give the said workmen a reasonable opportunity to lead evidence, that may in a proper case, be considered to introduce an element of infirmity in the enquiry; but in the circumstances of this case, it would not be pos!rlble to draw such an inference. (iv) The finding of the Tribunal that the dismissal was malafide, cannot possibly be sustained. The Tribunal has completely overlooked an elementary principle of judicial approach that even if a judge or Tribunal may reach an erroneous conclusion either 0£ fact or of law; the mere error of the conclusion does not make the conclusion malafide. 1964 March 81 1964 Tata Oil MilZ. Oo. Ltd. v. Its WOl'kmen 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [196(] (v) Since the domestic enquiry had been fairly conducted, and the findings recorded therein were based on Evidence which was believed, there was no justification for the Industrial Tribunal to consider the same facts f0r itself. Findings proper- ly recorded at such enquiries are binding on parties, unless, of course, it is shown that such findings are perverse or are not based on any evidence. Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen, [1960] t S.C.R. 32, referred to. (vi) Th<! Industrial Tribunal was in error when it charac- terised the ~esult' of the domestic enquiry as malafide ·partly because the enquiry was not stayed pending criminal proceed- ings against R. It is desirable that i~ the incident giving rise to a charge framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a criminal court, the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case. lt would be particularly appropriate to adopt such a course when the charge is of a grave character because it would be untalr to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he may t'1ke oefore the criminal court. But to say that domestlc en- quiries may be stayed pending ·criminal trial is very different from saying that if an employer proceeds with the domestic enquiry inspite of the fact that the cniminal trial is pending, the enquiry for that reason alone is vitiated and the conclusion arrived at in such an enquiry is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.