Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose out of an industrial dispute between Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. and its workmen. The dispute concerned the dismissal of eleven workmen and was referred to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. The Supreme Court was concerned with only three workmen: Manik Chandra Das, Nagen Bora, and Monoharan. Manik was served a show-cause notice alleging spoilage of articles due to his faults; a domestic enquiry was held jointly with another worker; no witnesses were examined except the accused; they were confronted with reports made behind their backs and asked why the report-makers would lie; the reports were not made available beforehand; the dismissal order cited wilful insubordination or disobedience though the charge was damage to property. The Tribunal found no proper enquiry, examined evidence, found no sufficient proof, set aside dismissal and ordered reinstatement. For Nagen and Monoharan, temporary workers appointed on March 10, 1959 and terminated on January 15, 1960, employed for less than 11 months, the Tribunal directed compensation under Section 25F. The appellant argued that the Tribunal could not go behind domestic findings and that temporary workers were not entitled to Section 25F. The Supreme Court held that proper domestic enquiry requirements were not met; dismissal was invalid also because the ground of dismissal did not match the charge; without a proper enquiry, the Tribunal could assess the truth. The Court upheld reinstatement. For temporary workers, the Court held they did not satisfy continuous service under Section 25B because employment was for less than 12 calendar months; mere 240 working days was insufficient. Compensation under Section 25F was set aside. The appeal was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Domestic Enquiry - Natural Justice - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 2(eee), 25F - An employer's domestic enquiry must satisfy minimum procedural safeguards: clear charges, examination of witnesses in employee's presence, opportunity to cross-examine and lead defence evidence, reasoned findings. Where persons whose reports were used were not present or cross-examined, the enquiry was no enquiry worth the name; Industrial Tribunal entitled to ignore domestic tribunal findings and examine evidence. Held that dismissal order was rightly set aside. B) Labour Law - Dismissal for Misconduct - Charge Sheet and Dismissal Order Conformity - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(eee) - Charge sheet alleged spoiling of articles/damage to property, but dismissal order cited wilful insubordination or disobedience. Domestic tribunal did not find insubordination. Dismissal for a misconduct not charged is invalid. Held that this itself was sufficient ground for setting aside dismissal; employer cannot substitute new ground. C) Labour Law - Continuous Service - Temporary Workmen and Section 25F Benefits - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 25B, 25F - Section 25F benefits require continuous service of not less than one year; Section 25B requires actual employment for period of not less than 12 calendar months and working 240 days in those 12 months. Two workmen employed for less than 11 calendar months even if worked over 240 days did not satisfy Section 25B. Held not entitled to compensation under Section 25F. D) Constitutional Law - Appeal by Special Leave - Article 136 - Findings of Fact - Constitution of India, Article 136 - The Supreme Court ordinarily does not permit challenge to findings of fact in appeals under Article 136. The Industrial Tribunal's factual finding that evidence did not prove misconduct was accepted. Held that Tribunal rightly set aside dismissal.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Industrial Tribunal was justified in setting aside dismissal of Manik Chandra Das despite domestic enquiry finding; whether Nagen Bora and Monoharan satisfied 'continuous service' requirement under Section 25F read with Section 25B for benefits.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's order setting aside Manik Chandra Das's dismissal and directing reinstatement. In respect of Nagen Bora and Monoharan, the Tribunal's direction for compensation under Section 25F was set aside as they had not completed one year of continuous service.
Law Points
- If domestic enquiry not held in accordance with natural justice
- Industrial Tribunal may ignore findings and examine evidence
- Dismissal order must align with charges
- For continuous service under Section 25B
- workman must be employed for not less than 12 calendar months and have actually worked 240 days in those 12 months
- findings of fact ordinarily not challengeable under Article 136.
