Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court which upheld the Industrial Tribunal's decision reinstating a conductor of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation with 50% back wages. The conductor was removed from service on 14.12.2001 for misconduct of not issuing tickets to passengers. The domestic inquiry was found defective by the Tribunal, so the employer led evidence by examining the inspecting officer, Sheshmani Mishra. The Tribunal set aside the removal, holding that the inspector should have recorded passenger statements and that no FIR was lodged for alleged misbehavior. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the principles from Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. and Karnataka SRTC v. Lakshmidevamma. The Court noted that strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to domestic inquiries, and that the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence was not perverse. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the reinstatement and back wages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Domestic Inquiry - Applicability of Evidence Act - Strict rules of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply to domestic inquiries; materials logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible - Held that the Tribunal's insistence on recording statements of passengers was not warranted in law (Paras 7-8).
B) Industrial Law - Section 11A Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Reappraisal of Evidence - Where domestic inquiry is defective, employer may lead evidence before Tribunal to prove misconduct; Tribunal has full power to reappraise evidence - Held that the Tribunal's finding that the Inspector was not proved to have inspected the bus was a plausible appreciation of evidence and not perverse (Paras 5-8).
C) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Back Wages - Tribunal directed reinstatement with 50% back wages - Supreme Court declined to interfere as the order was not perverse and no substantial question of law arose (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal and High Court erred in setting aside the removal of a conductor despite the employer leading evidence to prove misconduct after the domestic inquiry was found defective.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the High Court and the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of the respondent with 50% back wages.
Law Points
- Domestic inquiry
- strict rules of Evidence Act not applicable
- employer can lead evidence to prove misconduct if inquiry defective
- Tribunal's reappraisal of evidence is permissible
- scope of Section 11A Industrial Disputes Act
Case Details
2021 LawText (SC) (12) 39
Civil Appeal No. 7536 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12369 of 2021)
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order upholding Industrial Tribunal's reinstatement of a conductor with back wages.
Remedy Sought
Appellant employer sought to set aside the High Court order and the Tribunal's award of reinstatement with 50% back wages.
Filing Reason
The employer challenged the Tribunal's order setting aside the removal of the conductor on the ground that the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence was perverse and contrary to law.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Tribunal on 22.10.2008 directed reinstatement with 50% back wages; the High Court of Allahabad on 20.1.2021 upheld that order.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Tribunal and High Court erred in setting aside the removal of the conductor despite the employer leading evidence to prove misconduct after the domestic inquiry was found defective.
Whether the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act apply to domestic inquiries.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the Indian Evidence Act does not apply to domestic inquiries, and the Tribunal should have accepted the inspector's evidence as sufficient to prove misconduct.
Respondent argued that the Tribunal's finding was based on appreciation of evidence and was not perverse.
Ratio Decidendi
In a domestic inquiry, strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply; however, the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence, if plausible and not perverse, cannot be interfered with. The employer may lead evidence to prove misconduct after a defective inquiry, but the Tribunal has the power to reappraise such evidence under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Judgment Excerpts
It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply.
The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before it for the first time in justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be defective.
Procedural History
The workman was removed from service on 14.12.2001. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. On 5.5.2008, the Tribunal returned a preliminary finding that the domestic inquiry was not fair and proper. The employer then led evidence. On 22.10.2008, the Tribunal set aside the removal and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. The employer challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the challenge on 20.1.2021. The employer then appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 11A
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
