Shalimar Rope Works Ltd. v. State Of West Bengal And Others

Banerjee, J.:— One Paresh Nath Tripathi was a Supervisor in the factory of the petitioner company, at Shalimar, in the district of Howrah. At the time material for the purposes of this Rule, he was attached to the night shifts of the petitioner's factory. His duty was to supervise and control the work of about 100 workmen and to submit daily report on production and the running condition of the machinery in his section. The petitioner company, it is alleged, formed the idea that Paresh Nath Tripathi was not very particular in his duty, was negligent in conduct and prone to commit breach of discipline, such as, absence from work, issuing of false gate-passes, writing up false reports, loitering outside the factory promises during working hours etc. The petitioner company held some sort of a fact finding enquiry into the matter and, being dissatisfied with the conduct of Paresh Nath Tripathi on such enquiry, terminated the service of the petitioner by a notice (Ex. 1), dated December 3, 1960.

2. Paresh Nath Tripathi made a representation to the Works Manager of the petitioner company against the order of his termination of service, inter alia, on the ground that he had been penalised for alleged misconduct without any chargesheet and enquiry.

3. Thereupon, the Works Manager of the petitioner company held a full-fledged departmental enquiry against the petitioner and submitted an enquiry report, holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct as indicated above. On the enquiry report the petitioner company upheld the order, dated December 3, 1960, by its letter, dated March 24, 1961, which I set out below:

“We have carefully considered the reports of the enquiring Officer, and we fully agree with the same. A copy of the enquiry report is enclosed herewith.

We do not see any reason to alter the decision as communicated to you by our letter d/- 3.12.60 as made under clause 8(a) of the Company's Standing Order and the said order will stand.

You will however, be paid one months's wages in lieu of notice as per clause 8(a) of the company's Standing Order and also arrear wages and any other dues if any.

You are asked to collect the above amount from our Head Office immediately.”

4. The termination of service of Paresh Nath Tripathi raised an industrial dispute, which the respondent State Government referred to the Second Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The issue framed by the State Government for adjudication was: “Whether the dismissal of Shri Paresh Nath Tripathi is justified? To what relief, if any, is he entitled ?” The Tribunal examined the evidence against Paresh Nath Tripathi, which had been led before the domestic enquiry, itself took evidence and came to the finding that none of the allegations of misconduct against the workman stood proved, excepting the charge of absence from duty on two occasions. The relevant finding of the Tribunal in this respect is set out below:

“It is said for the Company that irregular arrivals and departures amount to acts subversive of discipline. I have already seen that the only fault on Tripathi's part was his absence after tiffin hours on 30th November 1960 and 1st December 1960, without being really ill. That is only a matter of temporary absence for half days on each of those two days. But that does not, in my view, amount to indisciplinary act.”

5. In the view taken, the Tribunal made an award directing reinstatement of Paresh Nath Tripathi without break in continuity of service and further directed the petitioner company to pay to him back wages accrued during the period of his forced unemployment.

6. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner company moved this Court, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, praying for the quashing of the award and a mandate upon the respondents not to take further steps thereunder and obtained this Rule.

7. Mr. Arun Kumar Dutt (Sr.) learned Advocate for the petitioner, argued that the Tribunal was in error in sitting as a court of appeal over the findings of the domestic tribunal and in going into the merits of the case, by re-examining the probative value of the evidence, on which the domestic tribunal had relied. In my opinion, the tribunal might have overdone itself in this respect but nevertheless there are certain inherent infirmities in the order of dismissal, which cannot be ignored. In the first place, there had been no formal chargesheet served upon Paresh Nath Tripathi when his service was terminated on December 3, 1960. The second enquiry proceeded against him also without service of a chargesheet and taking the grounds given in the order of termination as the charges levelled against him. As a result of the second enquiry, the order, dated December 3, 1960, was upheld resulting in the termination of the petitioner's service with retrospective effect. I would not have interfered with the award but for a reason to which I shall presently refer.

8. Although absolving Paresh Nath Tripathi from most of the charges levelled against him, even the Tribunal found him guilty of the charge of absenting himself from duty on two occasions on false pretext. It appears that Paresh Nath Tripathi was employed in a position of trust in the factory of the petitioner company and that his employer lost all confidence in him and became dissatisfied with his work. The evidence may not have been sufficient to establish the charges of misconduct levelled against Paresh Nath Tripathi; nevertheless the dissatisfaction of the employer against him is apparent. Although the termination of his service, on charges lavelled against him, has been held to be wrongful- (and in my opinion possibly rightly so) but that does not lead to the necessary consequence that he must be reinstated. The normal rule in cases of wrongful dismissal is reinstatement but the normal rule admits of exceptions. One such exception is inexpediency in forcing a workman back to a position of trust where the employer has lost all trust and confidence in the workman. These exceptions have been emphasised upon by the Supreme Court in two decisions, namely Samnuggur Jute Factory Co. Ltd v. Workmen (2). In such exceptional cases monetary compensation for wrongful dismissal may be an adequate relief. The Tribunal did not consider this aspect, when directing reinstatement of Paresh Nath Tripathi. Mr. Dutt expressed the willingness and eagerness of the petitioner company to compensate Paresh Nath Tripathi by payment of monetary compensation and prayed for being relieved of the burden of taking him back, on the ground that the petitioner company had no confidence in him and would not like to put him back in a position of trust. Unfortunately for the petitioner company this aspect of the matter was not emphasised before the Tribunal and I am not in a position to make a fresh award in place of the award made by the Tribunal.

9. In these circumstances, the best course for me is to uphold the finding of the Tribunal that the dismissal of Paresh Nath Tripathi was wrongful but to set aside the relief granted to the workman and to remand the case to the Tribunal, with the direction upon it to consider whether in the circumstances of the case, Paresh Nath Tripathi may be compensated, for his wrongful dismissal, in terms of money or whether he should be reinstated to his former position of trust. I order accordingly.

10. The Rule succeeds to the limited extent as indicated above. Let a Writ of Certiorari issue accordingly and let the case go back to the Tribunal with direction to it to reconsider the relief that should be granted to Paresh Nath Tripathi, in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. I make no order as to costs.