Service Law – Dismissal from service – Appellant was dismissed from service, on basis of a domestic enquiry, by the respondent no.1-bank on the ground of misconduct – Labour Court set aside the order of the dismissal and granted appellant 50% back wages along with reinstatement – High Court set aside the award of the Labour Court – On appeal, held: Labour Court committed jurisdictional error as it failed to decide the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry and thereafter, if domestic enquiry was found to be legal and proper, then it was to consider the proportionality of the punishment given to the appellant – Furthermore, while awarding 50% backwages, the Labour Court did not examine the question as to whether the appellant had pleaded and proved with aid of evidence that he was not gainfully employed after dismissal from service – High Court also failed to notice the jurisdictional errors committed by the Labour Court – However, there was no ground to interfere in the conclusion arrived by the High Court which resulted in upholding of the dismissal order – On perusal of the enquiry proceedings along with the Enquiry Report, no case was made out to hold that the domestic enquiry suffered from any procedural lapse or was conducted in violation of the principle of natural justice thereby causing any prejudice to the rights of the appellant – Order of dismissal passed against the appellant was neither wrong and nor disproportionate to the gravity of charges – Thus, punishment of dismissal upheld – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.11-A.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Labour Court committed more than one jurisdictional error in answering the Reference. The first error was that it failed to decide the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry. Since the dismissal order was based on the domestic enquiry, it was obligatory upon the Labour Court to first decide the question as a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry was legal and proper. If the answer to the question on the preliminary issue was that the domestic enquiry is legal and proper, the next question to be considered by the Labour Court was whether the punishment of dismissal from the service is commensurate with the gravity of the charges or is disproportionate requiring interference in its quantum by the Labour Court. If the answer to this question was that it is disproportionate, the Labour Court was entitled to interfere in the quantum of punishment by assigning reasons and substitute the punishment in place of the one imposed by respondent No.1Bank. This the Labour Court could do by taking recourse to the powers under Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. [Paras 19, 20, 22 and 23] [462-E-H; 464-A-B]
1.2 While deciding this question, it was not necessary for the Labour Court to examine as to whether the charges are made out or not. In other words, the enquiry for deciding the question should have been confined to the factors such as-what is the nature of the charge(s), its gravity, whether it is major or minor as per rules, the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charges, the employee’s overall service record and the punishment imposed etc. [Para 24] [464-G]
2. The second error was that the Labour Court called upon the parties to lead evidence on all the issues including the charge of misconduct in the first instance itself. [Para 29][464-G]
3. The third error committed by the Labour Court was that it proceeded to examine the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the charges like an Appellate Court, appreciated the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and the one adduced before it and then came to a conclusion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. This the Labour Court could not do. [Para 30] [464-H; 465-A]
4. Assuming that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to direct the parties in the first instance itself to adduce evidence on merits in support of the charges yet, it was obligatory upon the Labour Court to first frame the preliminary issue on the question of legality and validity of the domestic enquiry and confine its discussion only for examining the legality and propriety of the enquiry proceedings. [Para 31] [465-B-C]
5. Depending upon the finding on the preliminary issue on the legality of the enquiry proceedings, the Labour Court should have proceeded to decide the next questions. The Labour Court while deciding the preliminary issue could only rely upon the evidence, which was relevant for deciding the issue of legality of enquiry proceedings but not beyond it. [Para 32] [465-C-D]
6. The fourth error was award of 50% back wages to the appellant. While awarding 50% back wages, the Labour Court did not examine the question as to whether the appellant had pleaded and proved with the aid of evidence that he was not gainfully employed after his dismissal from service. [Para 34] [465-E-F]
7. There was no categorical finding recorded by the Labour Court and the High Court as to whether the domestic enquiry was legal or proper. Therefore, this Court proceeded to examine this issue in the first instance. Having perused the enquiry proceedings along with the Enquiry Report, this Court is of the view that no fault of any nature was noticed in the domestic enquiry proceedings for more than one reason. First, the appellant was given full opportunity at every stage of the proceedings which he availed; Second, he never raised any objection complaining causing of any prejudice of any nature to him before the Enquiry Officer; Third, he received all the papers/documents filed and relied upon by respondent No.1-Bank in support of the chargesheet; Fourth, he filed reply, cross examined the employer’s witnesses, examined his witnesses in defense, attended the proceedings and lastly, the Enquiry Officer appreciated the evidence and submitted his reasoned report running in several pages holding the appellant guilty of both the charges. [Paras 48,
49 and 50] [468-B-E]
8. In short, no case is made out to hold that the domestic enquiry suffers from any procedural lapse or was conducted in violation of the principle of natural justice thereby causing any prejudice to the rights of the appellant. [Para 51] [468-E]
9. The charges against the appellant being serious in nature, therefore, the order of dismissal passed against the appellant cannot be faulted with and nor it can be said to be, in any way, disproportionate to the gravity of charges. In other words, punishment of dismissal was proportionate with the gravity of the charges and hence deserves to be upheld. [Para 56] [469-B-C]
Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. (1979) 3 SCC 371 : [1979] 3 SCR 1165 – relied on.
M.P. State Electricity Board v. Jarina Bee (Smt.) (2003) 6 SCC 141 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 535 ; G. M. Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591: [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 569 ; U.P. State Brassware Corporation v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC
479 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 609 ; J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 433 : [2007] 2 SCR
60 ; Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. V. Venkatesan (2009) 9 SCC 601: [2009] 12 SCR 583 ; Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. (2009) 15 SCC 327 : [2009] 10 SCR
908 ; Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 324 : [2013] 9 SCR 1 ; Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jai Singh (1962) 3 SCR 684 ; Management of Ritz Theater (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen [1963] 3 SCR 461; Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory [1965] 3 SCR 588 ; State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain (1972) 4 SCC 304 : [1972] 1 SCR 755 ; Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh (1972) 1 SCC 595 : [1972] 3 SCR 29 ; Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India (1973) 1 SCC 813 : [1973] 3 SCR 587 ; Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe (1975) 2 SCC 671 : [1976] 1 SCR
505 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.