Case Note & Summary
The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., a textile manufacturing company, employed Kushal Bhan as a peon. On August 24, 1957, the cycle of Ram Chandra, Head Clerk of the Folding Department, was stolen. The matter was reported to the police. Later, the cycle was recovered from the railway station cycle stand at the instance of the respondent, who took the police there and identified the stolen cycle among 50-60 cycles. In October 1957, the company came to know of this and served a charge-sheet on the respondent alleging theft of the cycle, its recovery at his instance, and a pending criminal case. The respondent submitted an explanation on October 13, 1957, which was found unsatisfactory. An enquiry was fixed for November 14, 1957. The respondent appeared before the enquiry committee but stated that as the criminal case was pending against him, he did not want to produce any defence until the matter was decided by the court. He refused to take part in the enquiry, refused to answer questions, and eventually left the place. The company completed the enquiry and directed the dismissal of the respondent on the ground that misconduct had been proved. Thereafter, the company made an application under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal for approval of the disciplinary action taken against the respondent. In the meantime, the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court on April 8, 1958, on the ground that the case against him was not free from doubt. The judgment of the criminal court was produced before the tribunal, which by order dated May 6, 1958 in O.P. No. 54 of 1958 refused to approve the order of dismissal. The company appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The main contention of the appellant company was that it was not bound to wait for the result of the criminal trial and that it had held a fair enquiry; if the respondent refused to participate, the company could do no more than complete it and reach a conclusion on the evidence before it. The respondent argued that principles of natural justice require an employer to wait at least for the decision of the criminal trial court before taking disciplinary action, and that the employee was justified in not participating in disciplinary proceedings which dealt with the same subject matter as the criminal trial. The Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice do not require that an employer must wait for the decision of the criminal trial court before taking disciplinary action against an employee. Referring to Shri Bimal Kanta Mukherjee v. Messrs. Newsman's Printing Works, (1956) L.A.C. 188, the Court approved the view taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. It added that if the case is of a grave nature or involves questions of fact or law which are not simple, it would be advisable for the employer to await the decision of the trial court so that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. However, the present case was of a very simple nature, and the employer could not be blamed for the course adopted. There was no failure of natural justice, and since the respondent did not choose to take part in the enquiry, no fault could be found with that enquiry. The Court concluded that the tribunal patently erred in not granting approval under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and had completely lost sight of the limits of its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the order of the tribunal was set aside, and approval was granted to the appellant's order dismissing the respondent. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Disciplinary Enquiry During Pending Criminal Trial - Employer not required to await criminal court decision - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(2) - Employer conducted domestic enquiry into theft of cycle while criminal case pending; employee refused to participate claiming he would not produce defence until court decided; Supreme Court held principles of natural justice do not mandate waiting for criminal trial; in grave or complex cases it is advisable to wait, but here case was simple and employer's action not blameworthy; no failure of natural justice. Held that tribunal erred in refusing approval. B) Industrial Disputes Act - Approval of Dismissal - Section 33(2) - Tribunal's jurisdiction limited to considering whether fair enquiry held and approval warranted - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(2) - Tribunal refused approval after employee's acquittal in criminal case; Supreme Court held tribunal patently erred and lost sight of limits of its jurisdiction under Section 33(2); approval granted to dismissal. Held appeal allowed, order set aside.
Issue of Consideration
Whether principles of natural justice require an employer to wait for the decision of the criminal trial court before taking disciplinary action against an employee; whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in refusing approval under Section 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of Industrial Tribunal set aside; approval granted to appellant company's order dismissing respondent; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Principles of natural justice do not require employer to await criminal trial court decision
- Employer may hold domestic enquiry during pending criminal case
- In grave or complex cases employer should await criminal court decision
- Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 33(2) is limited
- Approval of dismissal should be granted if fair enquiry held and employee refused to participate
