1962 (8) TMI 100 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Necessity of holding an enquiry before dismissing an employee.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner to hold an enquiry.
3. Validity of the finding that no enquiry was held by the management.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Necessity of Holding an Enquiry Before Dismissing an Employee:
The appellant argued that it was not necessary to hold an enquiry before dismissing the employee, given the terms of his employment. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized the importance of adhering to industrial law, which mandates a proper and fair enquiry before dismissal. The Court stated, "We are unable to see why the word 'law' in this phrase 'in accordance with law' as used in Schedule 2 should be given a restricted connotation so as to leave out industrial law as evolved by the courts." The Court reinforced that industrial adjudication requires setting aside dismissals made without proper enquiry, thereby rejecting the appellant's first contention.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner to Hold an Enquiry:
The appellant contended that even if an enquiry by the management was necessary, the Assistant Labour Commissioner had the jurisdiction to hold the enquiry himself. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument, stating, "We are inclined to think that there is considerable force in the second contention that even though a proper enquiry was not held by the management the Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to hold an enquiry himself." This finding suggested that the Industrial Court was wrong in interfering with the order made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

3. Validity of the Finding that No Enquiry Was Held by the Management:
The Supreme Court scrutinized the Assistant Labour Commissioner's conclusion that no enquiry had been held by the management. The Court found this conclusion to be perverse, noting that the management had produced evidence of an enquiry, including signed statements from the employee and witnesses. The Court stated, "The conclusion of the Assistant Labour Commissioner that 'there are sufficient grounds to doubt whether an enquiry was really made' must therefore be held to be perverse." The Court criticized the Industrial Court for accepting this erroneous finding and held that the High Court should have corrected this error.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court should have recognized that a proper enquiry had been held and that the management's dismissal of the employee was justified. The Court stated, "We have accordingly come to the conclusion that the High Court ought to have held that there was a proper enquiry held against this employee and the management dismissed him on finding on that enquiry that the two charges against him had been fully proved." Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and restored the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner dismissing the employee's application. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.