THE GENERAL SECRETARY, SOUTH INDIAN CASHEW FACTORLES WORKER'S UNION versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE GENERAL SECRETARY, SOUTH INDIAN CASHEW 
B 
c 
D 
E 
FACTORlES WORKER'S UNION 
V, 
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA ST A TE CASHEW 
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. 
MAY 12, 2006 
[ARIJJT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, I 947-~ Section 1 IA- Re-appraisal of evidence 
adduced in enquiry to determine the correctness of the findings of enquiry1 
officer and interference with the punishment of reversion of workman, by 
Industrial Tribunal-Power of-Held: There was no allegation of unfair 
labour practice or victimization on part of the Management, findings were 
not perverse and principles of natural justice were complied with while 
conducting the enquiry---Thus, Labour Court has no power to interfere. 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was 
whether in the industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947, the Labour Court has power to re-appraise the evidence and 
determine whether the findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not 
or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I Finding of the Labour Court that enquiry was vitiated 
F 
because it was conducted by an officer of the Management cannot be 
sustained. The only other ground found by the Labour Court against 
the enquiry officer is that he made some unnecessary observations and, 
therefore, he was biased. The plea that enquiry officer was biased was 
not raised during the enquiry or pleadings before the Labour Court or 
G 
in earlier proceedings before the High Court. The bias of the enquiry 
officer has to be specifically pleaded and proved before the adjudicator. 
Labour Court itself found that the enquiry officer relied on the evidence 
adduced in the enquiry; that the enquiry was properly held and there 
was no violation of the principles of natural justice and that the findings 
were not perverse. In such circumstances, the preliminary order of the 
H Labour Court setting aside the enquiry on the ground that enquiry was 
488 
r 
THE GEN. SECY., SOUTil INDIAN CASHEW FACTORIES WORK'S UNION v. THE MANAGING 
DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. 
489 
conducted by an officer of the Management and he had made some 
observations in the enquiry report which were not warranted in the case 
is not a vitiating factor and these reasons are not sufficient to set aside 
the enquiry. The vitiating facts found by the Labour Court against the 
enquiry are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. When enquiry is 
conducted fairly and properly, in the absence of any allegations of 
victimization or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court J:tas no power 
to interfere with the punishment imposed. In the instant case, there is 
no allegation of unfair labour practice, victimisation etc. 
[494-D-G, 495-B-D) 
A 
B 
1.2 Section llA of the Industrial Disputes Act gives ample power 
C 
to the Labour Court to re-appraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry 
and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing 
punishment. Section llA is only applicable in the case of dismissal or 
discharge of a workman. Section llA is not applicable in the instant 
case, since the workman was reverted by Disciplinary Authority. Labour 
D 
Court has no power to re-appraise the evidence to find out whether the 
findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not or whether the 
punishment imposed is adequate or not. Labour Court can interfere 
with the findings if the findings are perverse. But, there is a clear finding 
that the findings are not perverse and principles of natural justice were 
complied with while conducting enquiry. Therefore, order of High 
Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. 
(495-D-E, 495-H, 496-A-B) 
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd v. Labour Court, 1970 (1) LLJ 
23; Saran Motors · (P) Ltd v. Vishwanath, (1964) II LLJ 139; Tata 
Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd v. S.C. Prasad, [1969) 3 SCC 372; 
Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltdv. Their Workmen, [1958)SCR 667; Workmen 
of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd v. The Management, 
(1973) 1 sec 813, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2521 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.01.1999 of High Court of 
Kerala at Emakulam in W.A. No. 439/1994-I. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
B.V. Deepak and Dilip Pillai, Advs., for the Appellant. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.