Supreme Court Upholds Employer in Industrial Dispute Over Dismissal for Assault on Co-Employee; Standing Order 22(viii) Covers Employment-Related Off-Duty Misconduct. Dismissal of Workman for Assault Outside Factory Was Valid as Assault Arose from Incentive Bonus Scheme Dispute Under Standing Order 22(viii) of Certified Standing Orders.

Industrial dispute challenging the dismissal of a workman for alleged misconduct of assault on a co-employee outside the factory premises.

The appellant employer sought reversal of the Industrial Tribunal's award directing reinstatement of dismissed workman K.K. Raghavan; the respondent workmen sought reinstatement and back wages.

The workman was dismissed after a domestic enquiry and approval by the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act; the union raised an industrial dispute against the dismissal, leading to a reference.

The Industrial Tribunal initially approved the dismissal of Raghavan in proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act; later, in a reference under the same Act, the Industrial Tribunal held the dismissal unjustified and ordered reinstatement in its award dated 28th September 1960.

Whether the assault by Raghavan on Augustine outside the factory attracted Standing Order 22(viii) of the Certified Standing Orders, given that it arose from a dispute over incentive bonus scheme. Whether the domestic enquiry was vitiated by refusal to adjourn the hearing or by pendency of criminal proceedings. Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in holding the dismissal mala fide. Whether the Industrial Tribunal could reappreciate evidence and ignore findings of the domestic enquiry.

The respondent argued that Standing Order 22(viii) should not cover purely private and individual disputes between employees, even if assaults occur outside the factory; such disputes should be dealt with under criminal law, not disciplinary proceedings. The appellant contended that the assault was not purely private but stemmed from a difference of opinion over introduction of incentive bonus scheme, thus having a rational connection with employment and falling within Standing Order 22(viii). The respondent argued that the domestic enquiry was unfair because the enquiry officer did not grant an adjournment, and because the enquiry proceeded despite pending criminal trial. The appellant argued that the domestic enquiry was fairly conducted and its findings were based on evidence, and that the Tribunal erred in calling the dismissal mala fide merely because it disagreed with the conclusion.

Standing Order 22(viii) of the Certified Standing Orders covers disorderly or riotous behaviour outside the factory only if such behaviour has a rational connection with the employment of the assailant and the victim. Purely private and individual disputes unconnected with employment are outside its scope. Findings of a fairly conducted domestic enquiry are binding on the Industrial Tribunal unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence; the Tribunal cannot reappreciate evidence. An erroneous conclusion of fact or law by a tribunal does not make its decision mala fide. Pendency of criminal proceedings does not automatically vitiate a domestic enquiry, though it is desirable to stay the enquiry in grave charges.

It would, we think, be unreasonable to include within standing order 22(viii) any riotous behaviour without the factory which was the result of purely private and individual dispute and in course of which tempers of both the contestants became hot. In order that standing order 22(viii) may be attracted, the appellant should be able to show that the disorderly or riotous behaviour had some rational connection with the employment of the assailant and the victim. Findings properly recorded at such enquiries are binding on parties, unless, of course, it is shown that such findings are perverse or are not based on any evidence. It is desirable that if the incident giving rise to a charge framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a criminal court, the employer should stay the domestic enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case. But to say that domestic enquiries may be stayed pending criminal trial is very different from saying that if an employer proceeds with the domestic enquiry inspite of the fact that the criminal trial is pending, the enquiry for that reason alone is vitiated and the conclusion arrived at in such, an enquiry is either bad in law or malafide.

On 12th November 1955, Raghavan and Mathews allegedly assaulted Augustine outside the factory. Charge-sheets were issued on 14th November 1955. Mr. Y.D. Joshi conducted the domestic enquiry from 27th to 30th December 1955 and submitted his report on 7th January 1956. The appellant applied to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of dismissal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; the Tribunal approved dismissal of Raghavan but not Mathews. Raghavan was dismissed with effect from 14th November 1955. The respondent union raised an industrial dispute, and the reference was ordered on 3rd December 1958. The Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam, by award dated 28th September 1960 in Industrial Dispute No. 81 of 1958, held the dismissal unjustified and ordered reinstatement. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, which allowed the appeal and set aside the reinstatement order.

• Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: Standing Order 22(viii)
• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: