Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Century Textile & Industries Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Thane, dated 10th March 1995, which rejected its application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval for the dismissal of the respondent employee, Shri Bhagirathmal D. Sharma. The respondent was employed as an attendant in the Bardana Department (Scrapyard) of the petitioner company. On 28th January 1987, a truck (MMS-2411) came to load scrap material. The respondent, responsible for supervising loading, conspired with scrap dealer Insan Ali and watchman D.B. Waghmare to load additional valuable items such as bearings, pipes, copper tubes, and brass valves beyond the authorized scrap. The truck was checked at the factory gate by the Security Jamadar, and a panchnama was drawn in the presence of the store-in-charge and Security Officer. A charge-sheet dated 17th February 1987 was issued to the respondent under Model Standing Orders clauses 24(d) (theft, fraud, or dishonesty) and 24(m) (gross negligence). A joint domestic enquiry was conducted against the respondent and Waghmare; Waghmare resigned, but the enquiry continued against the respondent. The enquiry officer found the respondent guilty, and the management dismissed him from service. Since a reference (IT No. 51 of 1982) was pending before the Tribunal, the employer sought approval under Section 33(2)(b). The Tribunal rejected the application, holding that the enquiry was not fair and that the findings were perverse. The High Court, per Justice B.H. Marlapalle, allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence when the enquiry was fair and proper. The Court noted that the respondent was given full opportunity to defend, the enquiry officer's findings were based on evidence, and there was no perversity. The Court granted approval for the dismissal, observing that the employer had made out a prima facie case. The writ petition was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was quashed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Approval under Section 33(2)(b) - Scope of Tribunal's Power - The Tribunal, while considering an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not to reappreciate evidence if the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and the findings are not perverse. The employer need only make out a prima facie case for approval. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Misconduct - Theft and Dishonesty - Model Standing Orders Clauses 24(d) and 24(m) - The employee, an attendant, was found to have conspired with others to load excess scrap material onto a truck, amounting to theft and gross negligence. The domestic enquiry held him guilty, and the High Court upheld the dismissal as the findings were based on evidence. (Paras 2-10) C) Industrial Law - Enquiry - Fairness - Joint Enquiry - The joint enquiry against the employee and another was not vitiated merely because the other employee resigned; the enquiry was conducted fairly and the employee was given full opportunity to defend. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in refusing approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for dismissal of an employee found guilty of theft and dishonesty in a domestic enquiry
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 10th March 1995, and granted approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the dismissal of the respondent employee from service.
Law Points
- Approval under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 requires employer to prove prima facie case and that enquiry was fair and proper
- Tribunal cannot reappreciate evidence if enquiry is fair
- Misconduct of theft and dishonesty under Model Standing Orders clauses 24(d) and 24(m) established
