9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the domestic enquiry held against the respondent was defective, that the charges against the respondent had not been made out and directed him to be reinstated. There were four charges framed against the respondent in the domes tic enquiry. They were: (1) Suspected dishonesty in connection with the company s property. (2) Gross negligence in performance of his duties. (3) Disobedience of instructions given by the superiors. (4) Commission of an act subversive of discipline. For the purposes of this appeal it is not necessary to consider other charges than charge No. 1. The chargesheet is rather a bit confused but the statement of facts regarding charge No. 1 is clear and there cannot be any doubt or confusion about it. The facts stated in the k chargesheet are as follows: It is reported that while you were on duty in the and shift on Sunday the 15th December, 1963 at about 10.30 P.M. you left the guard room and went into the factory. While returning from the factory you are reported to have brought out with you a new Fluroscent Tube and to have kept it in the guard room. Immediately after this you are also reported to have directed one of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inclined to afford proper opportunity to the respondent to defend himself, that there was no necessity for the respondent to apply again to the Inquiry officer for obtaining the necessary permission, that the passive approach adopted by the Inquiry officer in the matter had undoubtedly resulted in an opportunity to defend himself being denied and the inquiry will therefore be defective in this respect. It summoned and examined the police constable and taking his evidence also into account held as follows. Then there is evidence on the record of the inquiry to show that the relations of the second party with the Security Jamadar Shri David were strained. As a matter of fact the evidence shows that the reports from the watchmen started coming in at his instance. The proceedings against the second party started on the report of Shri David. The said report and the reports made by the other watchman and the second party are not forthcoming though referred to in the record of the inquiry. Then there is the glaring fact that very ambiguous allegations and charges which do not even constitute any misconduct are made against the second party and in spite of the fact that the evidence i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt or termination becomes an industrial dispute. It is no objection to this to say that this interpretation would lead to a situation where the disputes would be reopened after the lapse of many years and referred for adjudication under section 10. The question of creation of new rights by section 2A is also not very relevant. Even before the introduction of section 2A a dispute relating to an individual workman could become an industrial dispute by its being sponsored by a labour union or a group of workmen. Any reference under section 10 would be made only sometime after the dispute itself has arisen. The only relevant factor for consideration in making a reference under section 10 is whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. There cannot be any doubt that on the day the reference was made in the present case an industrial dispute as defined under s. 2A did exist. Normally the dispute regarding an individual workman is not an industrial dispute unless it is sponsored by the union to which he belongs or a group of workmen. The change made by section 2A is that in certain cases such a dispute need not be so sponsored and it will still be deemed an industrial dispute. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unity to examine their witnesses. It is not the duty of the Enquiry officer in this case to seek permission of the police constable s superiors. It was the respondent s duty to have him properly summoned. He did not even apply to the Enquiry officer requesting him to seek the permission of the police constable s superiors. It is therefore wrong on the part of the Labour Court to have held that the enquiry against the respondent was not a proper enquiry. Once this conclusion is reached there was no room for the summoning and examination of the police constable by the Labour Court. The question regarding the jurisdiction exercised by an Industrial Tribunal in respect of a domestic enquiry held by the management against a worker has been elaborately considered by this Court in its decision in D.C.M. v. Ludh Budh Singh(6) and the principles that emerge out of the earlier decisions of this Court have been set out in that decision. The decision of this Court in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre Rubber Co.(7) also sets out the principles that emerge from the earlier decisions. In Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen(8) it was argued that where the employee is unable to lead his evidence befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
