9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the respondent workman alone is not sufficient for upholding the departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen AIR [1957 (10) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT] has held that though the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal administration and discipline but the power is not unlimited and when a dispute arises, the Industrial Adjudicator has the power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified. It was further held that though in cases of dismissal on misconduct the Industrial Adjudicator is not to act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management but the Industrial Adjudicator will interfere when there is want of good faith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? 3. The record further shows that the Industrial Adjudicator dismissed the application of the appellant DTC under Section 33(2)(b) and passed an award dated 8th November, 2001 of reinstatement of the respondent workman with full back wages. The appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 6095/2002 challenging the said award and W.P.(C) No. 1420/2002 challenging the order of dismissal of the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. It further transpires that both the said writ petitions were decided on 29th September, 2004 and while the award was set aside and the matter remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of cash having been checked, the charges against the respondent workman could not have been held by the Inquiry Officer to have been proved. It was also held that no Presenting Officer was appointed by the appellant. Consequently the findings of the departmental inquiry were held to be perverse for the reasons that (a) the passengers having not supported the case of the checking staff in the inquiry; (b) cash having not been checked by the checking staff; (c) there being no Presenting Officer appointed by the management. Accordingly the issue no.1 (supra) was decided in favour of the respondent workman and against the appellant and the case posted for evidence on merits. 6. The Industrial Adjudicator thereafter vide award dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iry to be perverse. It was further the contention of the appellant then that the said aspect had not been considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, the Division Bench vide order dated 31st October, 2011 relegated the appellant to review and dismissed LPA No.848/2011 as withdrawn. 9. The appellant thereafter preferred review and which review application has now been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13th January, 2012. 10. Aggrieved therefrom the present Intra-Court appeal has been preferred. Though there is a delay of 39 days in preferring the present appeal and further delay of 24 days in re-filing but since we have heard the counsels, we ignore the delay. 11. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited and when a dispute arises, the Industrial Adjudicator has the power to see whether the termination of service of a workman is justified. It was further held that though in cases of dismissal on misconduct the Industrial Adjudicator is not to act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management but the Industrial Adjudicator will interfere: A. when there is want of good faith; B. when there is victimization or unfair labour practice; C. when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice; and, d. when on the material on record the finding is completely baseless or perverse. 13. The Supreme Court yet again in Syndicate Bank v. The General Secretary, Syndic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssible or held in the absence of the Presenting Officer. We are also of the view that the inquiry can also be held to be bad when the outcome thereof is not in consonance with its content and that is precisely the finding of the Industrial Adjudicator in the present case. The Supreme Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 88 held the findings of the departmental inquiry to be interferable if there is no evidence to prove the charge or where the relevant facts have not been considered. A Division Bench of this Court also in Union of India v. S.R. Tewari MANU/DE/0345/2012 held a finding of the departmental inquiry based on no evidence to be perverse. It was further observed that if on the basis of the material available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
