ASSOCIATED CEMENTS CO. V. WORKMEN
(1964) 3 SCR 652
FACTS
Associated Cement Companies Ltd.(Appellant) dismissed 5 workmen which was contended by the respondent to be unjustified. The Government of Punjab referred this dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Punjab, Patiala, under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The respondent urged it before the Tribunal that the enquiries conducted by the Appellant were not according to the Principles of Natural Justice therefore the dismissal of the 5 workmen was invalid.
The Tribunal held that the enquiries were not conducted according to the principle of natural justice, so the Appellant came up before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
If the appellant did not conduct the enquiry as per the Principles of Natural Justice? If the dismissal of the employees was valid or not?
HELD
1)For 3 out the 5 employees the parties agreed to take an order by consent. It was agreed that the award passed by the Tribunal in respect of these three workmen should be set aside, and the order of dismissal against them should be treated as an order of discharge simpliciter.
2)Concerning the employee “M”, there were serious infirmities in the enquiry conducted by the appellant:
a)Three enquiry officers claimed that they had witnessed the misconduct of “M” themselves. So if an officer himself sees the misconduct of a workman, it is desirable that the enquiry should be held by some other person who does not claim to be an eyewitness of the impugned incident. This would ensure that the personal knowledge is not imported into the enquiry proceedings by the enquiry officer.
b)Second infirmity is that the enquiry commenced with a close examination of “M” himself.
In domestic enquiries, the employer should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman charged, giving an opportunity to the workman to cross-examine the said evidence and then the workman should be asked whether he wants to give any explanation about the evidence led against him.
Here Mr “M” was cross-examined at the outset, which is an infirmity in the enquiry.
Hence the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
3)Concerning employee “V”
There were witnesses/evidence cited by the employee, that were not accepted and believed by the enquiry officer. Reasons for such conclusion were mentioned in the report.
The Court held that the reasons given in the report introduced serious infirmity in the enquiry and the report. It was observed that:
a) The first reason was that ”V” cited certain witnesses who according to the employer were absent from duty on the concerned date. The officers ascertained such absence from the attendance register and did not give “V” an opportunity to give his explanation and to produce those witnesses to say what they had to say on that point. Therefore, this reason on which the enquiry officers relied is based on information received by them from a register without any notice to “V”
b)A witness who was examined claimed to have come to the duty at a certain time. The enquiry officer found him to be on duty at some other time. The witness here was not asked about such a difference in duty timings. The rule that a witness should not be disbelieved on the grounds of an inconsistency between his statement and another document unless he is given a chance to explain the said document, is based on principles of natural justice.
Here the enquiry officers acted unfairly
c)Evidence from another enquiry was relied upon in the enquiry against “V”.It is unfair to rely on the evidence in the enquiry of a different employee while dealing with the case of “V”.
Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the report made by the enquiry officers against “V” cannot be accepted as a report made after holding a proper enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the Awards made in respect of “M” and “V” were confirmed.