Delhi Cloth And General Mills Company, Limited v. Labour Court, Tis Hazari, And Others

Shah, J.

Gopal, son of Sri Ram, was an employee of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills company in a textile unit called "the Swatantra Bharat Mills." Gopal was employed as a turner in the mechanical engineering workshop of the mills and operated at lathe. Gopal was charged with two acts of misconduct under Cls. 29(i)(a), 29(ii)(a) and 29(ii)(f) of the standing orders of the mills :

(1) that on 16 December, 1961 at 2.30 p.m. the workman Gopal left the lathe in a dirty condition without cleaning the machine as required by the rules and when asked by the Mistry Omprakash to clean the machinery and to clean the small iron pieces lying around and on the floor the workman refused to comply with the order that it was not his work. Thereafter the supervisor V. P. Dimri and head of department also asked him to clean the machine, but the workman declined to carry out the order. In that manner he had neglected his work and obstructed the proper working of the mills; and

(2) that on 16 December, 1961 the workman was asked by V. P. Dimri, the works supervisor, orally to remain present at the factory on 17 December, 1961 for necessary repairs to a clip stenter machine and in that connexion notice was also pasted on the notice-board of the workshop on 16 December, 1961 at 12.30 midday, but the workman intentionally remained absent on that day and thereby he caused interference in the proper working of the factory and disobeyed reasonable and legal orders of the management.

2. Gopal denied that he had committed the misconduct alleged. An enquiry was held before K. K. Bhaglal, enquiry officer of the mills and witnesses for the employer and respondent 2 were examined. Charge (1) was amended to read that respondent 2 had refused to remove "brass filings" and not iron filings. The enquiry officer found that it was the duty of the turner to remove brass filings from and under the machine and that in refusing to carry out his duties even after he was ordered in that behalf, and for failing to comply with "reasonable and lawful" orders of his superiors, he committed an act of misconduct within the meaning of the standing orders cited in the chargesheet. On charge (2) the enquiry officer held that Omprakash and Dimri orally asked Gopal to remain present in the factory on 17 December, 1961, but he refused to comply with the order and that shortly after midday on 16 December, 1961 a notice was pasted on the notice-board of the factory requiring the presence of certain named workman including Gopal in the premises of the factory on 17 December, 1961 and that Gopal knew that the notices was pasted and its contents. The enquiry officer held that there was no victimization, nor was the notice "unconstitutional".

3. After considering the report of the enquiry officer the manager of the factory passed an order on 18 June, 1962, declaring that Gopal was guilty of wilful defiance of the orders of his superiors and that his further retention in service was not conducive to discipline in the department and that he was on that account dismissed from service of the factory with effect from 19 June, 1962.

4. The management of the Swatantra Bharat Mills moved the industrial tribunal, Delhi, for an order under S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, approving the action taken against Gopal. The tribunal was of the view that since there was a dispute pending before it in relation to the duties of turners, no approval could be given for dismissing Gopal, on charge (1). But the tribunal held that Gopal had committed an act of wilful disobedience of lawful orders, a major misconduct under the standing orders of the mills since he had wilfully failed to attend duty on 17 December, 1961, even after he was told orally and was informed by a notice pasted on the notice-board, and that a prima facie case was made out in support of charge (2).

5. By order dated 29 March, 1964, the Delhi Administration referred the dispute between the management of the Swatantra Bharat Mills and Gopal under Ss. 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the labour court constituted for the Union Territory of Delhi, for adjudication on the question whether Gopal should be reinstated in service with retrospective effect and whether he was entitled to further relief, if any.

6. The labour court was of the view that the testimony of Omprakash Mistry and V. P. Dimri and other witnesses for the management was unreliable and that it could not be held on the evidence that it was the duty of respondent 2 to remove the brass filings from underneath the machine. The labour court observed :

"There was thus no evidence to prove that removal of brass filings from beneath the machine and around it was the duty of turner and the finding of enquiry officer must be held to be perverse. The enquiry officer's observation (sic) made by workmen to management show only one thing that the workman is bent upon creating mischief in the department, does not appear to be justified . . . It appears that the enquiry officer made that observation only to prejudice the management against the workman without any basis. This also shows that he was not very fair to the workman."

7. The observation of the labour court that there was no evidence that it was the duty of the turner to remove the brass filings is contrary to a large body of evidence before the enquiry officer and believed by him. The labour court was apparently not inclined to accept the testimony of witnesses that it was the duty of the turner was to remove the brass filings. The remaining observations appear also to be made by the labour court on matters on which there was apparently no pleading.

8. On charge (2) the labour court after considering the evidence observed :

"Thus the evidence produced by the management did not prove that the workman Gopal had notice of being called for duty on 17 December or he had wilfully absented. The enquiry officer has not correctly read the statement of Gopal. He has observed that Gopal admitted that notice Exs. P. 1 and P. 3 had been seen by all workmen in the department. This was not a correct appraisal of his statement."

The labour court then concluded that apparently an admission was made by Gopal that notice had been pasted on the notice-board, and that it had been seen by others but it was wrong to treat that as an admission by Gopal. The labour court then proceeded to observe :

"The enquiry officer has not dispassionately considered the evidence and has therefore arrived at wrong conclusions. He seems to have been trying to find fault with the workman when actually none existed. He does not appear to have acted impartially and this workman Gopal who has been agitating against the increase of workload on turners seems to have been victimized for that reason. I am not satisfied about the genuineness of this charge against the workman."

In making these findings the labour court has, in our judgment, assumed jurisdiction which it does not possess. This Court in Indian Iron and Steel Company, Ltd., and another v. Their workmen [1958 - I L.L.J. 260] observed at pp. 269-270.

". . . Undoubtedly, the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal administration and discipline; but the power is not unlimited and when a dispute arises, industrial tribunals have been given the power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief. In cases of dismissal on misconduct, the tribunal does not, however, act as a Court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management. It will interfere

(i) when there is a want of good faith,

(ii) when there is victimization or unfair labour practice,

(iii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and

(iv) when on the materials the finding is completely baseless or perverse . . ."

The present case, in our judgment, does not fall within any of the exceptions when power to reappraise the evidence may be exercised. The labour court apparently assumed that it was entitled to sit in second appeal over the order of the management and to substitute its own judgment for the view of the management. The labour court entered upon a reappraisal of the evidence and disbelieved witnesses for the management whose testimony had been accepted for good grounds mentioned in the order of the enquiry officer. There is no room for thinking that there was want of good faith on the part of the employers or that there was any attempt to victimize or to practise an unfair labour practice. It was also not contended that the management was guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice. It is impossible to hold on the materials on the record that the finding of the enquiry officer is completely baseless or perverse.

9. Counsel for Gopal contended that the enquiry officer was an employee of the management and that "he was bound to decide the case in their favour." But no such assumption can be made. It was also submitted that according to settled practice this Court will not, in an appeal with special leave, reappraise the evidence on which the labour court has recorded its conclusion. But we are not reappraising the evidence; we are only seeking to determine whether the labour court has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction. The legislature has not conferred upon the labour court power to sit in appeal over the judgment of the management. The labour court is therefore not competent to substitute its own judgment for that of the management arrived at after consideration of the report of the enquiry officer, and unless the case is brought within the exceptions set out by this Court in Indian Iron and Steel Company case [1958 - I L.L.J. 260] (vide supra) the action of the management must be upheld.

10. We set aside the order passed by the labour court and hold that Gopal, turner, is not entitled to be reinstated in service. The order awarding him full back-wages must be set aside. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.