1963 (2) TMI 44 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the dismissal of the workmen mentioned in the attached list is justified ? What relief by way of reinstatement and/or compensation are they entitled to? Held that - Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal therefore enquired into the case for itself. Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dhawan gave evidence which the Tribunal was not prepared to accept. It pointed out that their testimony conflicted on vital points. Since the Tribunal had the opportunity of hearing and seeing Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dhawan we should be slow to reach a conclusion different from that of the Tribunal. In addition in such cases it is not the practice of this Court to enter into evidence with a view to finding facts for itself. Following this well settled practice we see no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
Dismissal of workmen, Justification of dismissal, Reinstatement, Compensation, Enquiry process, Principles of natural justice, Evidence corroboration, Special cases of Dasarath Barick, Lea Bichu, Nester Munda.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal by a tea estate company against an award by the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, regarding the dismissal of 44 workmen. The order of reference was made in 1957, and the Tribunal's award in 1961 led to reinstatement and compensation for some workmen. The company challenged the award concerning 13 reinstated workmen. The judgment delves into the incident leading to the dismissals, where workers assaulted management, resulting in suspensions and dismissals. The Tribunal found the enquiry process flawed as it did not adhere to natural justice principles, requiring evidence and cross-examination. The Tribunal ordered the company to prove allegations de novo, leading to the reinstatement of some workmen.

The judgment discusses the Tribunal's cautious approach of requiring corroboration for witness testimony due to the incident's age and complexity, which the company contested citing the Indian Evidence Act. The Tribunal's method aimed to ensure fairness and eliminate faulty observation. The judgment upholds the Tribunal's decision, stating the approach was prudent and did not hinder the company's case. As no other points were argued, the appeal regarding the ten workmen involved in the 1956 incident was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision.

Regarding three special cases of Dasarath Barick, Lea Bichu, and Nester Munda, the Tribunal found the enquiry lacking proper evidence and witness corroboration. The judgment supports the Tribunal's decision in these cases, emphasizing the importance of a fair enquiry process. In Nester Munda's case, the Tribunal conducted its own enquiry due to discrepancies in witness testimony, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's decision. The judgment concludes by dismissing the company's appeal and affirming the Tribunal's findings, holding the company liable for costs.

In summary, the judgment extensively covers issues of dismissal, reinstatement, enquiry process, principles of natural justice, evidence corroboration, and specific cases, providing a detailed analysis of the Tribunal's decisions and the company's appeal, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's award and dismissing the company's appeal.