1969 (5) TMI 60 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bias and impartiality of the Manager in the inquiry and dismissal order.
2. Right of defense and withholding of documents.
3. Withdrawal of appeal by the Representative Union and its implications.
4. Validity of the ex parte inquiry.
5. Allegation of unfair labor practice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bias and Impartiality of the Manager in the Inquiry and Dismissal Order:
The petitioner contended that the dismissal order was vitiated because it was passed by the Manager against whom allegations of misappropriation were made. The Manager, who initiated the inquiry, issued the show cause notice, and acted as a witness, was also the judge in the case. This violated the principle that "no man shall be a judge in his own cause." The court cited the Supreme Court's doctrine of bias, which states that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done. The court concluded that the Manager's involvement in multiple roles (complainant, witness, and judge) violated the principles of natural justice, making the dismissal order invalid.

2. Right of Defense and Withholding of Documents:
The petitioner argued that his right to defense was stultified by the refusal to provide essential documents. The inquiry related to transactions from 1956, and the petitioner sought records from 1955 to 1958 to establish a pattern of practice in the Mills. The Industrial Court's refusal to consider these documents was deemed a complete misconception of the inquiry's nature. The court held that the employee's defense was crucial to ascertain whether the Manager or the employee misappropriated the amounts. The withholding of these records stultified the employee's right to defense, and thus, the inquiry and dismissal order were vitiated.

3. Withdrawal of Appeal by the Representative Union and Its Implications:
The Textile Labour Association, acting as the representative union, withdrew its appeal, which the petitioner wanted to press. The court noted that under the settled legal position, an individual employee has no right to act in proceedings where the representative union has appeared or acted. The court upheld the Industrial Court's decision to allow the withdrawal of the appeal by the representative union, concluding that the individual employee had no locus standi to oppose the withdrawal.

4. Validity of the Ex Parte Inquiry:
The petitioner refused to participate in the inquiry, feeling it was biased. The court acknowledged that the Manager's involvement in the inquiry was against principles of natural justice. The ex parte inquiry was not conducted impartially, as the Manager, who had a vested interest, played multiple roles in the process. The court held that the inquiry was vitiated due to the Manager's bias, and the dismissal order was invalid.

5. Allegation of Unfair Labor Practice:
The petitioner alleged unfair labor practice, which was found by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court's dismissal of this finding was based on a perverse approach and a total misconception of the inquiry's nature. The court restored the Labour Court's decision, which had found the inquiry and dismissal order vitiated due to unfair labor practices.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashed the Industrial Court's order, and restored the Labour Court's decision in toto. The Labour Court had held that the inquiry was not fair and impartial, and the dismissal order was invalid. The court emphasized the principles of natural justice, bias, and the right to defense, setting aside the Industrial Court's erroneous conclusions. The petitioner's dismissal was deemed invalid, and the Labour Court's order was reinstated.