A valid domestic enquiry established misconduct, but 34 years’ service warranted substituting compulsory retirement for dismissal.

The respondent-workman, a Steno-Typist in the petitioner hospital’s Pathology Department, was alleged to have refused a routine security check of his bags while leaving the clinic on 23 September 2014.

After receiving a show-cause notice dated 27 September 2014, he stated that he had returned upstairs to switch off a computer.

A domestic enquiry was conducted in which he was represented by a defence representative; the Enquiry Officer considered the CCTV footage and found the charge proved.

The workman was dismissed from service by order dated 5 May 2015.

On reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Fifth Industrial Tribunal invalidated the domestic enquiry by order dated 28 April 2022 and, by award dated 12 February 2024, held that reinstatement was not possible because the workman had superannuated, but awarded 75% back wages from dismissal until superannuation.

The management challenged the preliminary order and the award under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in invalidating the domestic enquiry and in substituting its own assessment of the evidence, particularly the CCTV footage, for that of the Enquiry Officer.

Whether the domestic enquiry complied with the principles of natural justice and whether the charge was established on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Whether the Tribunal’s award of 75% back wages was sustainable after holding that the dismissal was unjustified and reinstatement was unavailable due to superannuation.

Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers a Labour Court or Tribunal to determine whether discharge or dismissal is justified and, if not, to grant reinstatement or other appropriate relief, including a lesser punishment; the Tribunal must rely on the material on record and cannot take fresh evidence.

Under The Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. v. Management, the Tribunal may examine whether misconduct is proved and whether the punishment is justified, but its determination must be based on the materials before it.

Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court establishes that where an enquiry is defective, the employer may justify the dismissal by leading fresh evidence, and the defective enquiry record cannot ordinarily be treated as substantive material on the merits.

The decisions in Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam, High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Uday Singh and State of Bihar v. Phulpari Kumari recognise that departmental enquiries apply the test of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that judicial review does not extend to reassessing the sufficiency of evidence.

However, under Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari, interference is permissible where findings are unsupported by evidence, perverse, procedurally unfair, or vitiated by non-application of mind.

The High Court held that the Tribunal had improperly reassessed the CCTV footage and substituted its own view for that of the Enquiry Officer, instead of determining whether the enquiry was procedurally fair and whether the finding had evidentiary support.

On independently viewing the footage, the Court found that the workman was carrying more than two heavy white plastic bags in addition to his ordinary office bag, turned back hurriedly when stopped by the security guard, and appeared to return with lighter bags.

The Court considered the workman’s explanation—that he had returned to switch off his computer—to be inconsistent with his conduct and with the routine nature of the security check.

It further found that the management’s witnesses had been examined and cross-examined, and that the workman had received adequate opportunity to present his defence; consequently, the domestic enquiry substantially complied with natural justice and the finding of misconduct was supported by sufficient evidence.

Although the misconduct was established, the Court considered the workman’s 34 years of service and treated dismissal as excessive, warranting modification of the punishment under Section 11A.

The Tribunal’s award dated 12 February 2024 was set aside because the Tribunal had improperly invalidated the domestic enquiry and interfered with a finding supported by evidence.

The dismissal was modified to compulsory retirement, having regard to the respondent’s 34 years of service.

The Court directed that all consequential dues payable to the respondent be released within three months from the date of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with connected applications and interim orders dealt with as stated in the judgment.