Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 892 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd.
RESPONDENT:
Concerned Workman,Ram Pravesh Singh
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/2008
BENCH:
ASHOK BHAN & DALVEER BHANDARI
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13281 of 2006)
BHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Management is in appeal.
3. The respondent-workman was working as Senior Dumper
Operator under the Management of the appellant. The workman
was deputed at Open Caste Mine, West Bokaro on 2nd of March,
1994 during the first shift from 5.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.
Respondent left the place of his duty before the end of his
shift duty and went to Rajiv Nagar area where Shri Harbans
Kumar, Senior Officer (Security), along with a number of
security personnel and other workers, was discharging his
duties in connection with prevention of unauthorized
constructions on the company\022s land. The respondent-workman
along with few others approached Shri Harbans Kumar and
shouted at him using abusive language and threatened him
with dire consequences in case the unauthorized
construction was demolished. The respondent-workman, on
being asked not to behave in the said manner, assaulted
Shri Harbans Kumar with his hands and also resorted to
brick-bating as a result of which Shri Harbans Kumar and
Shri S.P. Yadav sustained injuries on the face and other
parts of the body.
4. Appellant-Management issued a charge sheet to the
respondent-workman whereby he was asked to show-cause as to
why disciplinary action should not be taken against him
under Clause 22(18) and 22(5) of the Standing Orders of the
Company for the following misconduct: -
\023(a) leaving work without permission
(b) indecent, riotous and disorderly
behaviour with a superior as well
as co-worker.\024
5. The respondent-workman submitted his reply denying all
charges brought against him. The Management decided to
conduct an enquiry and accordingly appointed Shri
Madhusudan Das, Deputy Manager (Personnel) as Enquiry
Officer. The Enquiry Officer after giving full opportunity
to the respondent-workman came to the conclusion that the
charges levelled against him were established beyond
reasonable doubt and submitted his report.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
6. The Punishing Authority after going through the
Enquiry Report and related enquiry papers, satisfied
himself that charges levelled against the respondent had
been established and recommended the dismissal of the
respondent from the Company with immediate effect. The
workman was accordingly dismissed on 23/25th of April, 1994.
7. The respondent raised an industrial dispute and the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of its
powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (for short \021the Act\022), referred the following
dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication:
\023THE SCHEDULE
\023Whether the action of the Management
of West Bokaro Collieries of M/s. TISCO Ltd.
PO-Ghatotand, Dist. Hazaribagh in dismissing
Shri Ram Pravesh, Ex. Sr. Dumper Operator
from the services of the Company w.e.f
25.4.1994 is justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled?\024
8. The respondent on 3rd of October, 2003, made a
statement before the Labour Court that he did not want to
challenge the legality, fairness and propriety of the
domestic enquiry. On this statement being made, the Labour
Court, after careful consideration of the facts and
circumstances and the submissions advanced by the Counsel
for the respondent, held that the domestic enquiry
conducted by the Management was fair, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice. The
matter was adjourned to 14th of December, 2001 for hearing
argument on merit.
9. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of
dismissal passed against the respondent by holding that the
Management had failed to substantiate the charges brought
against the concerned workman beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, order of dismissal passed against the
concerned workman was set aside and he was ordered to be
reinstated with 50% back wages.
10. Management, thereafter, filed the Writ Petition before
the High Court which was dismissed by the Learned Single
Judge, aggrieved against which Management filed Letters
Patent Appeal which has also been dismissed by the impugned
order.
11. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Raju Ramachandran,
appearing for the Management submitted that the findings
recorded by the domestic Tribunal based on the evidence
cannot be set aside or interfered with by the Industrial
Tribunal or the Courts by substituting their substantive
opinion in place of the one arrived at by the domestic
Tribunal. It is further contended that the Tribunal applied
the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt which is
required to be proved in criminal cases whereas in the
domestic enquiry and Civil Courts, the standard of proof is
of preponderance of probabilities. It is further contended
that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the order of
acquittal passed in favour of the respondent by the
Criminal Court as in the criminal cases, the standard of
proof required to prove a charge is materially different
than in civil matters.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
12. As against this, Learned Counsel for the respondent
contended that the Industrial Tribunal was fully justified
in coming to the different conclusions in exercise of its
powers under Section 11A of the Act.
13. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
14. The Tribunal in its order on re-appreciation of
evidence came to the conclusion that in the absence of any
independent evidence other than of fellow workman, the
charge of indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour with
superior and co-worker was not proved. Insofar as the
absence from the duty is concerned, Tribunal came to the
conclusion that according to the workman, he had left the
place of work at 12.25 P.M. and as the incident allegedly
had taken place at 12.30 P.M., the respondent could not
have reached the place of incident at 12.30 P.M. after
collecting his other associates. In para 14 of its order,
the Tribunal concluded that Management had failed to
substantiate the charges brought against the workman beyond
reasonable doubt.
15. This Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC)
vs. A.T. Mane [(2005) 3 SCC 254], held that: -
\023From the above it is clear that once a
domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to
a particular conclusion, normally it is not
open to the appellate tribunals and courts
to substitute their subjective opinion in
the place of the one arrived at by the
domestic tribunal. In the present case,
there is evidence of the inspector who
checked the bus which establishes the
misconduct of the respondent. The domestic
tribunal accepted that evidence and found
the respondent guilty. But the courts below
misdirected themselves in insisting on the
evidence of the ticketless passengers to
reject the said finding which, in our
opinion, as held by this Court in the case
of Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491] is not a
condition precedent. We may herein note that
the judgment of this Court in Rattan Singh
has since been followed by this Court in
Devendra Swamy vs. Karnataka SRTC [(2002) 9
SCC 644]\024
16. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vinod
Kumar [2007 (13) SCALE 690], this Court again observed that
in the absence of a challenge to the legality or fairness
of the domestic enquiry, the Court should be reluctant to
either interfere with the finding recorded by the Enquiry
Officer or the punishment awarded by the Punishing
Authority.
17. After going through the order of the Industrial
Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has
interfered with the findings recorded by the domestic
Tribunal as if it was the Appellate Tribunal. There was
evidence present on record regarding indecent, riotous and
disorderly behaviour of the respondent towards his
superiors. The Management witnesses who were present at the
scene of occurrence have unequivocally deposed about the
misbehaviour of the respondent towards his superiors. Their
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
evidence has been discarded by the Tribunal by observing
that in the absence of independent evidence, the statements
of the workmen who were present at the scene of occurrence
could not be believed. Industrial Tribunal fell in error in
discarding the evidence produced by the Management only
because the independent witnesses were not produced. It is
nobody\022s case that the independent witnesses were available
at the scene of occurrence and the Management had failed to
produce them. It is possible that at the time of
occurrence, only the workers of the Management and the
persons who were trying to put up the construction
unauthorizedly were the persons present and no independent
evidence was available. Statements of the fellow workmen
had established the misconduct of the respondent. Enquiry
Officer accepted the testimony of the witnesses produced by
the Management who had clearly implicated the respondent.
It was a legitimate conclusion which could be arrived at
and it would not be open to the Industrial Tribunal to
substitute the said opinion by its own opinion.
18. Findings recorded by the Tribunal that the workman had
left the place of duty at 12.25 P.M. and, therefore, could
not have reached the place of occurrence at 12.30 P.M.
after collecting his other associates, is not based on any
evidence. The case of the Management is that the respondent
had left his place of duty at 12.05 P.M. and reached the
place of occurrence at 12.30 P.M. after collecting his
fellow workmen. There was sufficient time for the workman
to reach the place of occurrence within half an hour as the
distance between the place of duty and the place of
occurrence was only 1 k.m. The duty of the respondent-
workman was upto 1.00 O\022clock. Even if, it is accepted that
he left the place of duty at 12.25 P.M., then also, he left
the place of duty during his duty hours.
19. Tribunal has set aside the report of the Enquiry
Officer and the order of dismissal passed by the Punishing
Authority by observing that the charges against the
respondent were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has
repeatedly been held by this Court that the acquittal in a
criminal case would not operate as a bar for drawing up of
a disciplinary proceeding against a delinquent. It is well
settled principle of law that yardstick and standard of
proof in a criminal case is different from the one in
disciplinary proceedings. While the standard of proof in a
criminal case is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the
standard of proof in a departmental proceeding is
preponderance of probabilities.
20. Learned Counsel for the respondent cited two cases \026
The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India
(Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management & Ors. [(1973) 1 SCC 813]
and South Indian Cashew Factories Workers\022 Union vs. Kerala
State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd.& Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC
201], to contend that the Labour Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 11A could have come to a
different conclusion. There is no quarrel with this
proposition of law. The Labour Court could have awarded
lesser punishment in the given facts and circumstances of
the case. In a case where two views are possible on the
evidence on record, then the Industrial Tribunal should be
very slow in coming to a conclusion other than the one
arrived at by the domestic Tribunal by substituting its
opinion in place of the opinion of the domestic Tribunal.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
21. Labour Court fell into the factual as well as legal
error in setting aside the findings recorded by the
domestic Tribunal. Learned Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench have simply affirmed the findings recorded
by the Tribunal.
22. For the reasons stated above, we accept this appeal,
set aside the order passed by the High Court as well as the
Labour Court. Accordingly, the Order passed by the domestic
Tribunal and the Punishing Authority is restored. There
should be no orders as to costs.