A vitiated domestic inquiry does not mandate reinstatement where misconduct is independently proved and dismissal is proportionate.

The Respondent was employed by the Petitioner from 1985 and was later promoted as Assistant Stores.

The Petitioner alleged repeated unauthorised absences, including absence from 16 January 2003 to 9 March 2003, and alleged that the Respondent reported for duty under the influence of liquor on 12 March 2003.

The Respondent attributed his absence to jaundice, hospitalisation, and medically advised bed rest, and asserted that he had submitted medical records and leave applications.

A domestic inquiry was conducted, which found the 53-day absence proved but did not establish the intoxication charge; the Respondent’s services were consequently terminated on 23 July 2004.

The Labour Court held the domestic inquiry violative of natural justice, permitted the Management to lead independent evidence, and ultimately found only approximately 20 days of absence unexplained. It set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages and consequential benefits.

The Petitioner challenged the Award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

During the writ proceedings, the Respondent died on 23 March 2024, and the Petitioner stated that Rs. 8,78,590 had already been paid.

Whether the Labour Court erred in holding that the domestic inquiry was unfair and contrary to the principles of natural justice?

Whether misconduct was established against the Respondent and, if so, whether the Labour Court was justified under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in interfering with the punishment of dismissal and granting reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages and consequential benefits?

Whether the impugned Award suffered from perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution?

The Court held that its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory and does not permit appellate reappreciation of evidence; interference with a Labour Court’s Award is justified only for patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or disregard of material evidence, applying Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, 1964 AIR 477.

Under B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, courts may interfere with disciplinary findings where natural justice is violated, statutory inquiry procedures are breached, or the finding is based on no evidence or is one that no reasonable person could reach.

Neeta Kaplish v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (1999) 1 SCC 517, establishes that where a domestic inquiry is held defective, the employer must be afforded an opportunity to lead independent evidence to prove the misconduct.

Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the Labour Court to set aside dismissal or impose a lesser punishment, but such power must be exercised judicially and interference is warranted only where the punishment is unjustified or shockingly disproportionate, as explained in Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. v. Management, (1973) 1 SCC 813, and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade, (2005) 3 SCC 134.

Past misconduct may be considered while determining the appropriate punishment, and persistent unauthorised absence may support a finding of loss of confidence, subject to objective factual justification.

The Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the domestic inquiry was vitiated because the Inquiry Officer admitted that there was no documentary proof showing supply of relied-upon documents or that the Respondent had been given an effective opportunity to cross-examine the Management’s witnesses.

Mere participation in the inquiry did not amount to waiver of natural justice, since participation must constitute a meaningful opportunity of defence.

The Labour Court had also correctly granted the Management an opportunity to lead independent evidence after invalidating the inquiry, causing no procedural prejudice.

On the merits, the Court accepted that the Respondent’s hospitalisation and medically advised bed rest explained a substantial part of the absence, but held that approximately 20 days remained unauthorised and unsubstantiated, particularly because the Respondent had not timely intimated the Management about his continuing inability to attend duty.

The intoxication charge was rightly rejected for want of medical evidence, contemporaneous material and testimony from the material witness.

Nevertheless, considering the unexplained absence, lack of intimation, earlier absenteeism and the resulting loss of employer confidence, the Court held that the Labour Court had improperly interfered with the dismissal under Section 11-A.

Reinstatement and full back wages were also not automatic and had been granted without examining gainful employment, financial consequences or the Respondent’s conduct.

The directions for reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages and consequential benefits were set aside, and the Award dated 5 October 2012 was modified accordingly.

However, amounts already paid pursuant to the Award, including payments made to the Respondent’s legal representatives after his death, were protected from recovery.

There was no order as to costs, and pending applications were disposed of.