Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Misconduct – Respondentworkman removed from service as conductor – Order of removal set aside by Tribunal – Confirmed by High Court – Held: Tribunal or High Court could not reject the evidence led by the appellantemployer in respect of misconduct of the workman before the adjudicator – Non lodging of FIR cannot be the circumstance against the witness examined by the employer – Initiation/noninitiation of criminal proceedings against an employee has no bearing to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings – Order of removal from service not unfair or unjust in any manner – Orders of the High Court and Tribunal set aside – Order of punishment restored – Evidence Act, 1872.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The domestic inquiry conducted can be permitted to be disputed before the Tribunal in terms of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [Para 5][397-E]
Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P.) Ltd. v. Management & Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 813 : [1973] 3 SCR 587 – relied on.
2.The order of the Tribunal and that of the High Court are clearly erroneous and not sustainable in law. The representative of the employer has not been cross-examined on the question that he has not inspected the bus on 12.11.1998. He has deposed that when he tried to record the statements of the passengers, the conductor misbehaved with him and used unruly words. Even that part of the statement has not been disputed in the crossexamination. Therefore, the fact that the Assistant Traffic Inspector was not able to record the names and addresses of the passengers cannot be said to be unjustified. Since the passengers are low-fare paying passengers, they might have been hesitant to get involved in the issues of any action against the conductor. The Inspector had found that 17 passengers were not issued tickets and such statement of the Inspector has also not been disputed in the cross examination. The Tribunal or the High Court could not reject the evidence led by the employer in respect of misconduct of the workman before the adjudicator. Still further non lodging of FIR cannot be the circumstance against the witness examined by the employer. The initiation of criminal proceedings against an employee or not initiating the proceedings has no bearing to prove misconduct in departmental proceedings. Therefore, the order of removal from service cannot be said to be unfair and unjust in any manner which would warrant an interference at the hands of the Tribunal and the High Court. The three reasons recorded by the Tribunal are absolutely perverse and not supported by any evidence. The Tribunal had misapplied the basic principles of law and the High Court has thereafter wrongly confirmed the order. The orders of the High Court and of the Tribunal are set aside. The order of punishment dated is restored. [Paras 11, 12][403-A-F]
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Lakshmidevamma & Anr. AIR 2001 SC 2090 – followed. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma (2010) 6 SCC 555: [2010] 7 SCR 239 – relied on.
Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (1983)
4 SCC 491 : [1984] 1 SCR 85; Rajendra Jha v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, District Dhanbad & Anr. 1984 Supp. SCC 520; State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491 – referred to.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation through M.D. & Ors. v. Rajendra Prasad 2019 SCC OnLine All 5152 – 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.