9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of enquiry permissible under Section 6-E(2)(b) of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Extent of the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal in holding such an enquiry. 3. Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in refusing to accord approval to the dismissal of workmen. 4. Allegations of victimization of a workman for trade union activities. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope of Enquiry Permissible under Section 6-E(2)(b): The principal question raised in this appeal concerns the scope of the enquiry permissible under Section 6-E(2)(b) of the United Provinces Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is identical to Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The object of Section 33 is to maintain the status quo during the pendency of industrial proceedings. Section 33(2) allows employers to alter conditions of service or dismiss workmen for misconduct not connected with the dispute, provided wages for one month are paid and an application for approval is made. 2. Extent of Jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal: The Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 33(2)(b) is limited to considering whether a prima facie case for approval is made out by the employer. The Tribunal must check if the standing orders justify the dismissal, whether a proper enquiry was held, whether wages for one month were paid, and whether an application for approval was made. The Tribunal's role is not to act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence or the merits of the findings from the domestic enquiry. 3. Tribunal Exceeding its Jurisdiction: The Tribunal refused to accord approval to the dismissal of the workmen, citing inadequacies in the evidence and the enquiry process. However, it was found that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by acting as an appellate court, reviewing the adequacy and sufficiency of the evidence, which is outside its purview under Section 33(2)(b). The Tribunal should have confined itself to checking the procedural correctness and prima facie case rather than reassessing the facts. 4. Allegations of Victimization: One of the dismissed workmen, Har Prasad, alleged victimization for his trade union activities. Although not recognized as a protected workman, the Tribunal considered his case separately and suggested victimization due to his union activities. However, the Supreme Court found that the evidence indicated Har Prasad's involvement in inciting the assault on the officers, justifying his dismissal. The Tribunal's decision to refuse approval based on alleged victimization was not supported by the evidence and exceeded its jurisdiction. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was set aside. Approval was accorded to the action taken by the appellant under Section 6-E. The Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by reassessing the merits of the domestic enquiry, which it was not authorized to do under Section 33(2)(b). The Supreme Court clarified the limited scope of the Tribunal's enquiry and emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural correctness rather than delving into the merits of the employer's decision.
|
