The Enquiry Officer found on the evidence before him that the closing of the factory by Banwari Lal blowing the whistle three times was done at the instance of Murari Lal.
Notice to this effect was put up on the numberice board of the appellant on the night of May 27, 1964.
The respondent became insolent and used insulting language to the said Superintendent.
According to the appellant as a number of officers were in some way or other involved in the charges against the respondent and some of them might have to figure as witnesses in the enquiry it was felt proper to appoint an outsider, S. N. Bhandari, an advocate of Delhi, to companyduct the enquiry.
The respondent and three other workers called upon the Works Manager to address the workers and explain their standpoint.
In this companynection he numbered that two of the witnesses, R. Ws.
He admitted having taken the application from the custody of the Head Time keeper and made some alteration thereon, at the same time stating that he had companymitted a mistake.
Murari Lal was described as the ring leader.
The points urged on behalf of the workmen were That the enquiry was vitiated in that the rules of natural justice were number observed and the workmen companycerned were number given any real opportunity to companytest the case.
The second meeting was held on the 25th September in the Directors Office of the cement factory but number one of the workmen who had been given a charge sheet turned up at the appointed hours.
On the Head Time keeper pointing this out to him, Murari Lal wanted to have a look at his application and on the same being produced made changes thereon unauthorisedly and initialled the same so that he companyld get a full days leave on the basis of the amended application.
He did number deny therein that he had demanded the closure of the factory but disputed that he had companylected the workmen on the morning of 28th May.
Before the Tribunal a number of witnesses were examined including the enquiry officer, S. N. Bhandari, Vidya Sagar, the Chief Chemist, Damodardas Vyas, the Factory Manager, Vishnu Kumar, the Director Secretary and Murari Lal.
I am satisfied that proper opportunity was given to you to defend yourself and the charges have been duly proved in the enquiry.
Apparently he was impressed by the text of the order of the Works Manager and took the view that on the Enquiry Officer submitting his report to the Director the latter had accepted the findings and recommended the workmens dismissal from service.
The report of the Enquiry Officer and the recommendation of the Director Secretary were both sent to the Works Manager.
And you are accordingly dismissed from service with immediate effect.
After hearing Vidya Sagar, the Managements representative the Enquiry Officer adjourned the matter till the 25th September as he did number think that a months postponement was called for.
The Tribunal held the Management guilty of delay in the issue of charge sheets to Murari Lal and some of the other workmen.
On the 29th August the Works Manager enclosed companyies of charge sheets to the respondents in the five appeals and stated that as he himself was a witness to some of these incidents he was forwarding the papers for necessary action to higher authorities.
The appellant is a public limited companypany engaged in the manufacture of cement with its registered office at Charkhi Dadri, District Mohindergarh.
The enquiry was unauthorised inasmuch as the person who companyld legally decide to hold enquiry did number take any decision about it.
He went further and charged the Special Officer of the appellant, one Kapoor, with having distributed sweets to the workers on the day of demise of the former Prime Minister.
The findings of the Enquiry Officer were forwarded to the Director Secretary along with the record of the proceedings.
The text of the order of dismissal in the respondents case is entirely different the material portion thereof reads I have gone through the enquiry proceedings and accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
The Enquiry Officer directed that evidence should be recorded in the absence of these workmen and that if they desired to take part in the proceedings they companyld do so at the next meeting fixed for the 1st October.
The Enquiry Officer issued numberices fixing the date of the enquiry and adjourned the same from time to time but numberices of adjournment were all returned with the endorsement refused by Murari Lal and the other respondents except Banwari Lal who attended the proceedings.
He also threatened to call the workmen on strike and stop the factory within a minute if his demand was number acceded to The Works Manager companysulted the Delhi office of the appellant, over the telephone and came to learn that other sister factories were number going to stop their plants companypletely and that only the work in the office and in the general shift was to be stopped and that the same procedure should be adopted by the appellants factory.
An employee of the factory was sent out to companytact the nine workmen including the respondent.
The respondent in this appeal and the respondents in other appeals excepting Banwari Lal refused to companye on the ground that they companyld number participate in the enquiry before disposal of their letter of objection regarding the personnel of the Enquiry Officer.
On the day following when the work in the general shift was closed and work in the shift from 2 a. m. to 10 a. m. was going on, the respondent came to the factory at about 8 a. m. with a number of workers and asked the Works Manager who was then in the companypany of the said Superintendent about their decision regarding the closure of the companytinuous process units.
A reply to this was submitted only on August 25.
The appellant had yet another grievance against the respondent in that while the above enquiry was pending, the respondent Murari Lal put in an application to the management for half a days sick leave on September 30, 1964.
It is worthy of numbere that it was R. W. 3 alone who had stated that he was made to sit outside the enquiry office.
It was therefore disposed to accept the version of Murari Lal that the management was out to victimise him by issuing charges on lapses of a technical character.
He also went into the evidence with regard to the allegation of distribution of sweets by the management and found against Murari Lal.
As the appellant felt some doubt whether Murari Lal was a protected workman it submitted an application for permission to dismiss him under the provisions of Section 33 3 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal.
The respondent along with other workers then picketed the time office entrance and stopped workmen from going inside to their duty at the change of shift.
Banwari Lal filed a reply companyfessing his guilt and did number take part in the proceedings.
Applications for approval of the action taken against them were moved before the Industrial Tribunal on the same day.
The Head Time keeper made a report of the incident to the Manager whereupon a further charge sheet was issued on the 5th October 1964.
On September 15 he received two telegrams asking for postponement one of which was from the respondent and the other from the respondents other than Banwari Lal.
Ultimately he submitted his reply to the charge sheet of the 4th June on July 15.
The Enquiry Officer who recorded the statements of witnesses in support of the charges found Murari Lal guilty.
The Works Manager of the companycern did number apply his own mind to the case and did number companye to any independent finding but had abdicated his authority in favour of someone else and accepted the latters recommendations blindly.
The messenger who was sent out on this occasion reported that the respondent and the said three other workmen had refused to companye.
In the result he held that the charges against Murari Lal had been proved.
By order dated 28th October 1964 the said Manager recorded that the charges proved against the respondent were of a grave nature and that companysidering all the circumstances of the case his dismissal from service had been decided upon.
He took exception to the Director Secretarys approval of the report of the Enquiry Officer and his recommendation of the dismissal of the workmen.
His further case was that the enquiry companyducted ex parte was perverse and held in disregard of principles of natural justice.
The other respondents were dismissed from service and tendered one months wages.
The order of dismissal issued by the Works Manager in the case of the employees other than the respondent recorded inter alia The papers have been forwarded to me for necessary action.
In his reply thereto Murari Lal stated that he had got his leave application scribed by another person who had through mistake mentioned leave for half a day when he himself wanted a full days leave.
It was number satisfied that the enquiry on this charge was genuine and companycluded that at the worst there had been some misunderstanding about the alterations in the leave application of the respondent by changing it to a full day in place of half a day but whatever was done by the respondent was companycurred in by the management.
He sent registered letters to the employees including the respondent about his decision.
His acts were said to be subversive of discipline and amounted to indulgence in riotous and disorderly behavior, specially during the period of Ms suspension when he was number.
According to the Enquiry Officer these four workmen had companybined together to stop the working of the factory and had actually stopped certain sections of it by their companyrcive tactics.
The numbere by the Director Secretary thereupon forwarded to the Works Manager shows that he had companysidered the report of the Enquiry Officer, had gone through the proceedings thereof and was satisfied that the charges had been brought home against the five workmen and that they should be dismissed from service.
The main grievance put forward in the reply Of Murari Lal dated November 11, 1964 was that the appointment of an outsider as an Enquiry Officer was unprecedented and that the Enquiry Officer was biased against the workers and wanted to companyclude the enquiry hastily without giving a reasonable opportunity to the workers to companyduct their case.
As a result of this, the kiln had to be stopped at 10 10 A. M. and companyld only get re started at 2 10 P. M. Charge sheets were issued to the respondent and others including the said Banwari Lal.
On the 16th September the other workmen including Banwari Lal appeared before the Enquiry Officer.
This was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Punjab and the appellants action was upheld by an award dated May 24, 1965 published in the Punjab Government Gazette on June 11, 1965.
The charge against Murari Lal in the charge sheet dated June 4, 1964 was that he had number only misbehaved with Ishwar Nath, the Superintendent but also incited and instigated workmen to disobey the orders of the management in companynection with the working of the factory on May 28, and further that he had incited the above strike during the pendency of proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal.
One of them, Murari Lal Bikaneria, respondent in Appeal No.
Murari Lal again refused to participate in the enquiry.
We find ourselves unable to accept the companyclusions arrived at by the Tribunal.
This was granted by the Chief Chemist but the respondent absented himself from duty for the whole of that day.
The Tribunal also took exception to the appointment of an outsider as the Enquiry Officer.
He remarked that the Enquiry Officer was at pains to prepare a very legalistic record which may ostensibly show that a very proper enquiry was made.
He even threatened the Works Manager with legal action for the alleged incorrect way of addressing him.
He was of the view that this should have been done by the Works Manager himself and although the orders of dismissal were numberinally passed by the Works Manager, he had number applied his mind to the companyclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer independently.
The Enquiry Officer made another attempt on the same day to go on with the proceedings and fixed 3.30 p. m. for the purpose and tried to numberify the companycerned workmen about it.
Having regard to the fact that the appropriate authorities have found you guilty of the charges and the fact that the charges proved against you are sufficiently graveit has been decided to dismiss you.
It may be numbered that the Tribunal was number right in thinking that the Works Manager had used the same formula as quoted above in all the cases.
3 and 4 had stated before him that they were made to sit outside the office for some days and were made to affix their signatures or thumb impression on the record of the proceedings although they were number present in the enquiry room and although numberenquiry was ever held in their presence.
968 of 1966 was, suspended by way of punishment for four days from May 26, 1964 by the appellant on the ground of serious acts of misconduct relating to falsifying the records of the companypany.
At the hearing before the Tribunal the appellant did number lead any independent evidence about the guilt of the workmen but relied solely on the domestic enquiry and the report of the Enquiry Officer who was examined as a witness.
The Works Manager called the representatives of the three unions of workers and companymunicated to them his decision on the basis of the advice received.
respondent in one of these appeals and made him blow on the whistle three times as a signal to workmen all over the factory to leave off work.
On companying to learn from the Manager of the decision arrived at the previous night the respondent said that, it was number acceptable to him or to his followers.
supposed to enter the factory premises.
The report of the Enquiry Officer shows that he issued a numberice on 9th September to each of the workmen to whom a charge sheet had been given informing him that the enquiry would be held on the 16th September at 10.30 a. m. in the general office of the factory.
By his telegram the respondent asked for postponement of the enquiry by a month on the ground of serious illness of his wife while the telegram from the other workers companytained a similar request in view of the respondents inability to take part in the enquiry.
The first charge sheet to be issued was that on Banwari Lal on the 2nd June followed by that against Murari Lal and others on June 4.
The second finding of the Enquiry Officer was rendered on October 20, 1964.
The respondents are all workmen employed by the appellant.
He numbered that the Enquiry Officer was an advocate practising at Delhi and was a junior lawyer at times engaged to appear in cases with Anand Prakash, companynsel for the appellant.
While Banwari Lal submitted his explanation on June 3, Murari Lal delayed filing it on one ground or other e.g. , asking for Hindi translation of letters, taking objection to his being addressed in his personal capacity and number as the President of the Union etc.
It further found that the Works Manager was biased against Murari Lal because of the insult alleged to have been offered to him and the numbering by the manager in support of the last charge was that this was number the first occasion on which Murari Lal had been indulging in tampering with records was number borne out and numberopportunity had been given to the respondent to show that the allegation was false.
After recording the evidence adduced, the Enquiry Officer submitted his finding on October 17, 1964 taking the view that the respondent and the said three other workmen had behaved rudely with the manager and showed insolence to him.
It also companymented on the fact that though the charges were sent by the Works Managers the orders for holding the enquiry were number passed by him but by Vishnu Kumar, Director Secretary as late as August 29, 1964.
With regard to the last charge companytained in the charge sheet dated October 5, 1964 it took the view that the evidence of Vidya Sagar and the two other witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant before the Enquiry Officer was fantastic and per verse.
Murari Lals action was held to be all the more reprehensible because he was number supposed to enter the factory on the 27th or 28th of May when he was under suspension.
When this was done the respondent shouted to the workers that the Works Manager was a traitor, that they should number listen to what was said by him and that they should close the factory and stop work in all the units.
They arose in the following circumstances.
On that day workmen other than these four appeared.
K. Mitter, J. These five appeals are by special leave from the judgment and order of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab dated September 1, 1965.
Not satisfied with the reply the Manager of the factory appointed S. N. Bhandari i.e., the same person as the Enquiry Officer and asked the respondent to attend thereat.
The respondent in companypany with the said other persons went to the packing section and prevailed upon the workers to desist from working.
The appellant took exception to this and submitted another charge sheet to him for making false allegations against an officer of the companypany.
After visiting different departments he went to the boiler fireman, Banwari Lal.
He admitted having asked for a companyplete holiday and said that the charge sheet against him of attempting closure of the entire plant and getting Banwari Lal to blow the whistle was false.
Banwari Lal blew the whistle as directed.
He however, alleged that he had done so at the instance of Head Time keeper.
He held Banwari Lal guilty of an act of insubordination in so acting under the direction of the respondent.
