Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an industrial dispute concerning the dismissal of thirteen workmen of Bhatdee Colliery. The appellant, M/s. Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co., was the employer, and the respondents were the dismissed workmen. During a strike commenced on October 20, 1959 by the Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, the thirteen workmen physically obstructed surface trammers who were willing to work by sitting between tramline tracks, and some incited others, on October 20, October 27, and November 3, 1959. Charge-sheets were served on November 9, 1959 alleging violation of regulation 38(1)(b) of the Coal Mines Regulations and rules 27(19) and 27(20) of the Coal Mines Standing Order. An inquiry was held by the Welfare Officer, who found all thirteen guilty and recommended dismissal. As another reference was pending before the same Industrial Tribunal, the appellant filed thirteen applications under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the tribunal approved the dismissals. Subsequently, the Central Government referred the dispute under Section 10 of the Act, asking whether the dismissals were justified and to what relief the workmen were entitled. The Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, in its award dated November 23, 1960, held that the domestic inquiry was proper but concluded that the dismissals amounted to victimisation, mainly because the punishment of dismissal was considered unconscionable and grossly out of proportion, and because the workmen were office bearers or active union members with long service and strained relations with management. The tribunal set aside the dismissals and ordered reinstatement within one month, treating the period of forced unemployment as leave without pay, without back wages. The appellant appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court, contending that there was no evidence to support the finding of victimisation. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that where a domestic inquiry is properly held, the tribunal cannot sit in appeal on its findings and may interfere with punishment only on limited grounds such as want of good faith, basic error, violation of natural justice, perverse findings, victimisation, or unfair labour practice. The Court noted that the tribunal had not found any such defect; it had already approved the action under Section 33(2)(b), implying the inquiry was proper. On the question of victimisation, the Court observed that although unconscionable or grossly disproportionate punishment may sometimes justify an inference of victimisation, the present misconduct—physically obstructing willing workers during a strike—was serious, and dismissal was perfectly justified. The mere fact that the employer chose dismissal over fine or suspension was not sufficient to infer victimisation. The Court further held that long service, good record, union office, protected workman status, and strained relations with the union did not constitute evidence of victimisation, as that would give union leaders a carte blanche to commit misconduct. The finding of victimisation was based on conjectures and surmises, including an erroneous reference to names in police reports. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal and upheld the dismissals.
Headnote
A) Industrial Dispute - Domestic Inquiry - Scope of Tribunal's Interference - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 10, 33(2)(b) - Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over findings of a properly conducted domestic inquiry and can interfere with punishment only on grounds of want of good faith, basic error, violation of natural justice, perverse findings, victimisation or unfair labour practice - The inquiry was held proper and the tribunal had already approved the action under Section 33(2)(b), so interference was not justified - Held that the tribunal erred in setting aside dismissal without such grounds (Paras 1-5). B) Industrial Dispute - Victimisation - Unconscionable Punishment - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(2)(b) - Where punishment of dismissal for proved misconduct is unconscionable or grossly out of proportion, tribunal may infer victimisation - Physical obstruction of willing workers during an illegal strike was serious misconduct, so dismissal was proportionate and not unconscionable - Held that no inference of victimisation could be drawn merely because dismissal was chosen over fine or suspension (Paras 4-5). C) Industrial Dispute - Evidence of Victimisation - Union Activity and Strained Relations Insufficient - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(2)(b) - Long service, good record, union office bearers, protected workmen status and strained employer-union relations do not by themselves prove victimisation - Such factors cannot provide union leaders carte blanche to commit misconduct - Held that finding of victimisation based on such factors was based on conjectures and surmises (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of thirteen workmen amounted to victimisation; whether the Industrial Tribunal could interfere with the punishment of dismissal imposed after a proper domestic inquiry; whether the punishment was unconscionable or grossly out of proportion to the misconduct.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal set aside; dismissals of the thirteen workmen upheld; no victimisation found.
Law Points
- Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over findings of properly conducted domestic inquiry
- interference permissible only on grounds of want of good faith
- basic error
- violation of natural justice
- perverse findings
- victimisation or unfair labour practice
- unconscionable punishment may indicate victimisation but not where misconduct serious
- long service and union office not evidence of victimisation.
