WORKMEN OF BALMADIES ESTATES versus MANAGEMENT BALMADIES ESTATE AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 18-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 867 
WORKMEN OF BALMADIES ESTATES 
A 
-'i 
v. 
MANAGEMENT BALMADIES ESTATE AND ORS. 
(C.A. No. 2435 of 2006) 
JANUARY 18, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Labour laws : 
Domestic enquiry - Dismissal for committing theft, on c 
the basis of evidence of two other workmen - Set aside by 
Labour Court on the ground that evidence was not properly 
appreciated by enquiry officer - High Court held that 
appreciation of evidencf! by Labour Court was perverse -
Correctness of - Held: Correct - In domestic enquiry, guilt 
may not be established beyond reasonable doubt and the D 
proof of misconduct is sufficient - Evidence Act is not 
applicable to proceeding in domestic enquiry though 
principles of fairness would apply - The two witnesses stated 
that confession was made by delinquents in their presence 
and also in the presence of others - There was no cross-
E 
examination with regard thereto - Also no complaint by 
delinquents even after charge-sheet was filed that they were 
compelled to make confession - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
- s.11A - Evidence Act, 1872. 
Two workmen were issued charge sheet on F 
_.. 
allegation of theft. An enquiry was held in which they 
-I 
participated till the evidence of MWs.1 and 2 was recorded. 
MW.1 was cross examined by both the workmen. Neither 
of them questioned the correctness of the statement of 
MW1 that they had confessed to the police about the theft G 
in his presence. The statement of MW-1 was uncontro-
' 
~ 
verted. MW-2 confirmed the statement of MW-1. After 
cross examining the witnesses, the delinquents did not 
take part in the enquiry. The enquiry officer concluded 
867 
H 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A that the two delinquents had committed the theft. 
.,...,~ 
Thereafter they were dismissed from service. The dispute 
was referred to the Labour Court, which held that there 
was no direct evidence to show that the two workmen 
had committed theft and the evidence was not properly 
B appreciated by the enquiry officer and the finding of guilt 
was based on a very slender evidence. The award was 
challenged by the employer by filing writ petition. High 
Court allowed the same holding that the Labour Court had 
failed to take note of the direct evidence more particularly 
c the evidence of MWs. 1 and 2. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The power of the Labour Court under the 
Industrial Disputes Act has expanded vastly after the 
D introduction of s.11 A into the Statute. In view of the wide 
powers of the Labour Court, it can, in an appropriate case, 
consider the evidence which has been considered by the 
domestic Tribunal and in a given case on such 
consideration arrive at a conclusion different from the one 
arrived at by the Domestic Tribunal. The assessment of 
E evidence in a domestic enquiry is not required to be made 
by applying the same yardstick as a Civil Court could do 
when a /is is brought before it. The Evidence Act, 1872 is 
not applicable to the proceeding in a domestic enquiry 
though principles of fairness are to apply. It is also fairly 
F well settled that in a domestic enquiry guilt may not be 
established beyond reasonable doubt and the proof of 
;. 
,.. 
misconduct would be sufficient. In a domestic enquiry, 
all materials which are logically probative including 
hearsay evidence can be acted upon provided it t:as a 
G reasonable nexus and credibility. [Paras 7-8] [871-G; 
872-8-E] 
t 
, 
The Workmen of Mis.Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of 
India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and Ors. (1973)1 SCC 
813; Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1983) 4 SCC 
H 156; Indian Overseas Bank v. 1.0.B. Staff Canteen Workers' 
WORKMEN OF BALMADIES ESTATES v. 
869 
MGMT. BALMADIES ESTATE AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 
Union and Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 245; d.D. Jain v. Management A 
of State Bank of India and Anr. (1982) 1 sec 143 - relied on. 
2. What MWs. 1 and 2 had stated was to the effect 
that th'e confession was made by the two delinquents in 
their presence and also in the presence of others. There . 
was no cross examination with regard thereto. There was 8 
no complaint made by the delinquents even after the 
charge sheet was filed that the confessions had been 
extracted from them and/or that they had been compelled 
to make such a statement by reason of any threat held 
out. Even when they cross examined the witnesses, they C 
did not even suggest that what had been

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