9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Dispute between the appellant and two workmen regarding dismissal based on charges of gross negligence and moral turpitude. Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Labour under Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act for granting permission to dismiss employees. Analysis: The case involved a dispute between the appellant and two workmen regarding charges of gross negligence and moral turpitude. The appellant conducted separate enquiries and concluded that the charges against the employees were proved, leading to applications under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act for permission to dismiss them. The Commissioner of Labour, responsible for granting such permissions, held that the employees were not given a fair opportunity to present their cases during the enquiries, thus denying the requested permission. In the first employee's case, Subba Raman, he requested representation by counsel during the enquiry, which was denied by the Enquiry Officer. Subba Raman then withdrew from the enquiry, which continued ex parte, resulting in the charges being proved against him. Similarly, in the case of the other employee, Seetharamiah, he sought representation by an outsider during the enquiry, which was also denied, leading to his withdrawal and an ex parte enquiry where the charges were proved. The Commissioner of Labour found the Enquiry Officer's refusal to permit representation unjustified in both cases, concluding that there was no fair and full enquiry into the charges against the employees. However, the Supreme Court referred to a previous decision where it was held that a workman has no inherent right to be represented by a union representative during an enquiry. In this case, the employees wanted representation by counsel and an outsider, not a union representative, which was deemed unnecessary for a fair enquiry. The Supreme Court emphasized that after the employees withdrew from the enquiries, the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex parte and examined numerous witnesses before concluding that the charges were proved. Therefore, the Court disagreed with the Commissioner of Labour's view that the enquiries were not fair and full. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's order, and granted permission to the appellant to dismiss the two employees under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. No costs were awarded in this decision.
|
