Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an industrial matter concerning the dismissal of a workman by the appellant employer. The employer, Bharat Forge Company Limited, had conducted a domestic enquiry against the respondent-employee, A.B. Zodge, and subsequently passed an order of dismissal. The employer sought permission from the Industrial Tribunal to lead evidence in support of the dismissal order. The Industrial Tribunal refused the prayer, holding that although the enquiry was properly held, the finding in the enquiry was perverse and therefore no opportunity to lead evidence should be given. The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision. The employer then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in refusing the employer's prayer to lead evidence in support of the dismissal order, particularly in light of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant argued that even when a finding is perverse, the whole issue is at large before the Tribunal, and the employer is entitled to adduce additional evidence, relying on Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen and Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Management. The appellant further contended that Section 11A did not alter this position, as there was no express or implied abrogation of the right. The respondent argued that after insertion of Section 11A, the legal position had changed, and the proviso to Section 11A expressly barred fresh evidence because the Tribunal shall rely only on materials on record. The Supreme Court examined the earlier decisions, particularly Firestone Tyre and Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd., which had specifically considered the proviso to Section 11A. The Court held that Section 11A did not take away the employer's right to lead evidence for the first time before the Tribunal, even if no enquiry was held or the enquiry was found to be perverse. A domestic enquiry vitiated for non-compliance with natural justice or perversity stands on the same footing as no enquiry, and the right to adduce evidence in both situations is well recognised. The Court reiterated that the employer must make a suitable request to lead evidence before closure of proceedings, and in the present case such request was made. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and held that denial of opportunity to the employer to lead evidence was not justified. The Court directed that the appellant may lead further evidence within two months from the date of the order, and the workman may lead evidence within one month thereafter. The Industrial Tribunal was directed to complete the proceeding within six months from the date of communication of the order. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Domestic Enquiry - Perverse Finding - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 11A - Employer's right to lead evidence before Industrial Tribunal even when domestic enquiry finding is perverse; whole issue at large before Tribunal and it may deal with merits; denied opportunity cannot be justified. Held that a vitiated enquiry due to perversity stands on same footing as no enquiry, and right to adduce evidence is well recognised (Paras 1-2). B) Labour Law - Statutory Interpretation - Proviso to Section 11A - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 11A - Proviso does not bar fresh evidence; Supreme Court in Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. specifically considered proviso and held no abrogation of employer's right to lead evidence; earlier Firestone decision also indicated no express or implied change in law. Held that even after Section 11A, employer entitled to adduce evidence for first time before Tribunal (Paras 2-3). C) Labour Law - Procedural Fairness - Stage of Request for Permission - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 11A - Employer must make suitable request to lead evidence before closure of proceedings before Tribunal; in present case request was made before closure, thus denial unjustified. Held that opportunity must be given if request made before proceedings close; decision in Delhi Cloth Mill reiterated in Shanker Chakravarti (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in refusing the prayer of the employer to lead evidence in support of the order of dismissal passed against the respondent-employee, particularly in light of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of Bombay High Court, and held that denial of opportunity to employer to lead evidence in support of dismissal order was not justified. Directed Industrial Tribunal to permit parties to lead evidence; appellant to lead further evidence within two months from date of order and workman within one month thereafter; Tribunal to complete proceedings within six months from date of communication of order; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Employer's right to lead evidence before Industrial Tribunal even when domestic enquiry is perverse
- Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 does not abrogate right
- proviso to Section 11A does not bar fresh evidence
- right must be exercised before closure of proceedings
