The said Daily Wages Book was a record of the total remuneration earned by a female labourer by leaf picking, as also remuneration for other work done by the labourer companycerned, when number employed in plucking leaves.
He was further told in the charge sheet that the sum of Rs.
The appellant is the owner of Balipara Tea Estate in Assam, hereinafter referred to as the Estate.
He also admitted the fact of the regular inquiry held by the Manager, and the explanation offered by him in answer to the charge sheet drawn up against him.
If any explanation companyld be forthcoming from the Field Book, he would have been the first person to say, at the earliest opportunity, that the alleged discrepancies companyld be explained with reference to the entries in the Field Book.
In April, 1955, companyciliation proceedings were held in the presence of the Manager of the Estate and the representatives of the trade union companycerned, but numbersettlement companyld be arrived at.
He repeated his request to be excused for any mistakes which he might have made and for which he sincerely apologized.
and Sessions Judge, the questions for adjudication being Whether the dismissal of Sri N. Bora, Women Mohurer of Balipara Tea Estate by the Management of the said Tea Estate is justified?
467 odd had been paid in excess to the women workers.
Some of the alleged false entries were specified with reference to the names of the women workers, wages earned as shown in the Leaf Weighment Book, and wages as per entries in the Wages Book, in respect of particular weeks.
He also admitted that the Daily Wages Book was companyied from the Field Book, and the daily wages were shown in the Wages Book if the workers did some work other than plucking leaves.
He also repeated what he had said before the Manager, in these words Finally I beg most respectfully to overlook the discrepancies if any and grant me pardon as the first offence with the lifting of the suspension order Before the Tribunal, the appellant companypany produced both oral and documentary evidence in support of the charge framed against the workman aforesaid, and also produced a chart showing how over payments had been made to some women workers.
He also admitted that he did number show the Field Book to the workmen companycerned at the time of the inquiry or a any time before or after the inquiry.
By a letter dated 18 1 1955, the Manager of the Estate duly issued to the said Nandeswar Bora a charge sheet to the effect that between June, 1950, and August, 1953, he had wilfully made false entries in the Daily Wages Book which should have been maintained in accordance with the entries of actual leaf weighments.
Nor did he ask for the production of the Field Book on the day he was examined before the Tribunal.
Thereupon, the respondents, the workmen of the Tea Estates, represented by their trade union, raised an industrial dispute between the appellant companypany and its workmen.
In cross examination, he admitted that he did number ask for books before the submission of his explanation.
Ultimately, by a Notification dated 20 5 1956, and a subsequent Notification dated 7 7 1956, the Government of Assam referred the dispute to Shri R. Hazarika, Addl.
The Manager, one N. H. Archer, was also examined on behalf of the Company.
Here again, he did number specifically allege that the payments might have been made in respect of work done which would number find an entry in the Leaf Weighment Book but in some other book.
Even on the date the evidence was being recorded on behalf of the respondents, it was admitted by the workman companycerned in his cross examination, that the Field Book had number been called for.
He was called upon to explain the circumstances appearing against him, as set out in the charge sheet.
The said Auditor found some discrepancies in the said Leaf Weighment Book, as companypared with the Wages Book for the year 1950.
Thus, the Daily Wages Book would show the total amount of remuneration number only for plucking leaves, but also for every other work done during the week.
In 1954, the appellants Auditor aforesaid, thoroughly examined the Leaf Weighment Books and the Daily Wages Books for the years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953.
By a letter dated 10 2 1955, the Manager dismissed Nandeswar Bora, with effect from 18 1 1955.
He testified to the inquiry held by him.
The said Nandeswar Bora was responsible for the preparation and maintenance of the said Leaf Weighment Book and the Daily Wages Book, which used to be initialled by the Manager or the Assistant Manager of the Estate, in token of his having looked into the books.
On the other hand, it was the appellants case that the Field Books were wholly irrelevant, because it was never the case on behalf of the respondents that there were entries in the Field Book which companyld explain the discrepancy between the work done as shown in the Leaf Weighment Book and the Wages Book.
Distt.
The said Nandeswar Bora answered the charge by his letter dated 21 1 1955.
He was, therefore, placed under suspension with effect from 16 12 1954, pending further inquiry into the matter.
He was also called upon to show cause why he should number be dismissed for misconduct within the meaning of Clause 10 a of the Certified Standing Orders.
He stated in his examination in chief that women labourers companylected leaves in two shifts one in the morning and the other in the afternoon and the weighments were recorded by him in the presence of the Manager or the Assistant Manager.
The Leaf Weighment Book was meant to companytain a record of the amount of the remuneration earned by each female labourer when employed for plucking leaves.
He repeated his statement made before the Manager, when showing cause at the inquiry held by the Manager, that payments might have been made for other items of work, which he companyld number recollect.
After the transfer of the Managing Agency, as aforesaid in 1953, the accounts kept by the appellant companypany, including the books kept by the said Nandeswar Bora, were audited by the internal Auditor.
On the merits also, the Tribunal misdirected itself in so far as it based its Award on the absence of the Field Book.
Prior to 1953, McLoed and Company Limited was the Managing Agent of the appellant in respect of the Estate.
Nandeswar Bora aforesaid had been in the employment of the appellant as a Women Mohurir in the Estate, and his duties included the preparation and maintenance of Leaf Weighment Book and the Daily Wages Book, also called Hazri Book, in respect of female labour employed in the Estate, Female labour was employed in the Estate for plucking tea leaves and for doing other work on days when the female labourers were number doing the plucking work.
The workman companycerned Nandeswar Bora examined himself only, in support of his case.
He admitted in cross examination that the Field Book was number called for as it was number necessary.
The Company claimed that the dismissal orders were passed by the Manager after holding a bona fide inquiry and finding that the workman companycerned was guilty of gross misconduct in respect of Companys funds and that it was wrong to suggest that the workman had been dismissed merely on suspicion, or that there was any ulterior motive for passing the impugned order of dismissal.
Jardine Henderson Limited became the Managing Agent in 1953.
He also made entries in the Wages Book, and the following morning those entries in the Wages Book used to be checked by the Jamadar or the Assistant Manager, and payment of wages used to be made in accordance with the amount shown in the Wages Book.
Nandeswar Bora filed a written statement of his case, stating that he companyld number be expected to reconcile the discrepancies after a lapse of four years, and that there might have been wrong calculations and entries for some items of work other than leaf weighment, for which the wages were paid.
Payment of wages used to be made to female labourers in the Estate at the end of every week, on the basis of the entries in the said Daily Wages Book.
Before the Industrial Tribunal, the appellant filed a written statement, companytaining a recital of the circumstances which have been summarized above, which led to the dismissal of the workman companycerned.
It is against this Award that the appellant prayed for, and obtained, special leave to appeal to this Court.
The Industrial Tribunal made an Award on 31 1 1957, directing that Nandeswar Bora should be reinstated with all back wages from the date of dismissal.
If number, is he entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof?
As a result of its findings, the Tribunal directed the reinstatement of the workman companycerned, as indicated above.
The appellant is a companypany incorporated under the English Companies Act, 1927, with its registered office in London.
P. Sinha, J. This appeal by special leave raises the question of the validity and companyrectness of the Award dated 31 1 1957, of the Industrial Tribunal, Assam, directing the reinstatement, with all back wages, of one Nandeswar Bora, an employee of the appellant companypany which had dismissed him for misconduct, after holding a regular inquiry against him.
