LexUSHA BRECO MAZDOOR SANGH versus MANAGEMENT OF M/S. USHA BRECO LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 13 USHA BRECO MAZDOOR SANGH A V. MANAGEMENT OF M/S. USHA BRECO LTD. AND ANR. - (Civil Appeal Nos. 3051-3052 of 2008) APRIL 29, 2008 B .... [S.8. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.11A - Jurisdiction of · Labour Court under - Scope of - Held: Decision of Labour Court should not be based on mere hypothesis - It cannot c overturn a decision of the Management on 'ipse dixit' - Its iurisdiction under s.11-A although is a wide one, must be judiciously exercised - Judicial discretion cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously - It may scrutinize and· analyse the evidence but what is important is how it does so. D Application of s.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as noticed by this Court in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. 's case* in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is in question in the present appeals.· In the instant case, the Labour Court after holding E that the domestic enquiry had been made following the principles of natural justice and was legal, proceeded to record a finding that the Management had not proved the charges levelled against the workmen concerned. High Court, by the impugned judgment, held that once the F __) Labour Court held that the Domestic enquiry was valid and proper, there was no occasion for the Labour Court ,_. to ask itself the question whether on the evidence, the charges were proved against the concerned workmen. The High Court held that the Labour Court had committed G an error of jurisdiction. -i The contention on behalf of the impleaded applicant is that the High Court committed a manifest error in ~ ... 13 H -· 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. A passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under s.11-A of the Act being a wide one, the same can be exercised not only for the purpose of determination of a preliminary issue with regard to the validity or otherwise B of holding of the Domestic Enquiry, the Labour Court is entitled to reappreciate the evidence and alter the quantum of punishment. Respondent, on the other hand, contended that although jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section C 11-A of the Act is wide, in a case of this nature where the preliminary issue was answered in favour of the Management, the Labour Court could not have gone into the merit of the decision of the disciplinary authority relying on or on the basis of the enquiry report to arrive at 0 a different finding on the me·rit of the matter to hold that the charges of misconduct against the impleaded applicant was not proved and quantum of punishment imposed upon the impleaded applicant was excessive. Declining to interfere with the ultimate conclusion of E High Court, albeit for different reasons and thereafter dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The jurisdictional issue determined by the Labour Court was not premised on a wrong question. It F was one thing to say that an administrative body or a quasi- judicial authority misdirected itself in determining the issue by posing unto itself a wrong question which would obviously lead to a wrong answer, but, it would be.another thing to say that although the administrative authority or G the quasi-judicial body did not lack inherent jurisdiction but committed a jurisdictional error in exercising its jurisdiction. The High Court, therefore, was not correct in its view having regard to the binding precedent operating in this behalf in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. that the H qu~stion posed by the Lalbour Court amounted to a USHA BRECO MAZDOOR SANGH v. MANAGEMENT 15 OF M/S. USHA BRECO LTD. & ANR. misdirection in law. The proper issue which should have A been posed was as to whether a case for interference had been made out. [Para 20] [30-C-G] Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147: (1969) 1 All ER 208 - re.ferred to. B 2. In the instant case, the Ma,nagement filed an application for determination of the preliminary issue in regard to the legality or validity of the domestic enquiry. The entire records of the enquiry proceedings were f , produced before the Labour Court. The workmen c concerned had raised all possible objections therein. They examined themselves. The Labour Court in its order dated ..... 16.08.1990, however, determined the issue in favour of the Management and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.