2004 (12) TMI 693 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act - Negligence and misconduct of the bus driver - Fairness of the domestic inquiry - principle of natural justice - Res ipsa loquitur - HELD THAT - It is now a well-settled principle of law that the principle of Evidence Act have no application in a domestic enquiry. The tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act was required to bear in mind the aforementioned legal principles. Furthermore, in a case of this nature the probative value of the evidence showing the extensive damages caused to the entire left side of the bus; the fact that the bus first hit the branches of a tamarind tree and then stopped at a distance of 81 ft therefrom even after colliding with another bus coming from the front deserved serious consideration at the hands of the tribunal. The nature of impact clearly demonstrates that the vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently. Res ipsa loquitur is a well-known principle which is applicable in the instant case. Once the said doctrine is found to be applicable the burden of proof would shift on the delinquent. As noticed, the enquiry officer has categorically rejected the defence of the Respondent that the bus was being driven at a slow speed. In the instant case the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court misdirected themselves in law insofar as they failed to pose unto themselves correct questions. It is now well-settled that a quasi-judicial authority must pose unto itself a correct question so as to arrive at a correct finding of fact. A wrong question posed leads to a wrong answer. In this case, further more, the misdirection in law committed by the Industrial Tribunal was apparent insofar as it did not apply the principle of Res ipsa loquitur which was relevant for the purpose of this case and, thus, failed to take into consideration a relevant factor and furthermore took into consideration an irrelevant fact not garmane for determining the issue, namely, the passengers of the bus were mandatorily required to be examined. The Industrial Tribunal further failed to apply the correct standard of proof in relation to a domestic enquiry, which in preponderance of probability and applied the standard of proof required for a criminal trial. A case for judicial review was, thus, clearly made out. Thus, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the domestic inquiry conducted against the Respondent.
2. Application of the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
3. Standard of proof required in domestic inquiries versus criminal trials.
4. Examination of passengers as witnesses in the domestic inquiry.
5. Jurisdiction and scope of the Industrial Tribunal u/s 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Domestic Inquiry:
The Respondent, a bus driver, was dismissed after a disciplinary inquiry found him guilty of driving rashly and negligently, causing an accident that resulted in the death of 7 passengers. The Industrial Tribunal rejected the dismissal approval, citing the inquiry's failure to observe principles of natural justice by not examining the passengers who had given statements. The Supreme Court noted that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal u/s 33(2)(b) is limited and does not equate to re-appreciating evidence like a court of appeal. The Tribunal should have considered whether a prima facie case was made out based on the evidence presented.

2. Application of the Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur:
The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur, stating that the nature of the accident and the extensive damage to the bus indicated rash and negligent driving. This principle shifts the burden of proof to the Respondent to show that the accident did not occur due to his negligence. The inquiry officer's rejection of the Respondent's defense that he was driving slowly and the accident occurred to save a boy was upheld.

3. Standard of Proof Required in Domestic Inquiries vs. Criminal Trials:
The Court reiterated that the standard of proof in domestic inquiries is 'preponderance of probability,' unlike 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' required in criminal trials. The Tribunal erred by applying the criminal standard of proof to the domestic inquiry.

4. Examination of Passengers as Witnesses:
The Supreme Court held that it was not essential to examine the passengers in the domestic inquiry. The evidence provided by the Branch Manager, who inspected the accident scene, was sufficient. The Tribunal's insistence on examining the passengers was deemed unnecessary, especially since the Respondent did not request their cross-examination during the inquiry.

5. Jurisdiction and Scope of the Industrial Tribunal u/s 33(2)(b):
The Tribunal's role is to determine if a prima facie case exists for the employer's action, not to conduct a de novo trial. The Supreme Court criticized the Tribunal and the High Court for not applying the correct legal standards and for failing to consider relevant evidence. The Tribunal should have granted approval for the dismissal based on the evidence presented.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court, directing that the dismissal approval should be granted. The Respondent retains the right to challenge the dismissal through appropriate legal remedies. The appeal was allowed with no costs.

← Previous Next →