On December 9, 1964 the appellant filed an application in the Labour Court, Jabalpur, under section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act challenging the validity of the inquiry on various grounds and praying that the order of dismissal be set aside and that an order of reinstatement be passed with back wages.
The Flying Squad prepared a Panchnama on the spot obtaining thereon the signatures of the appellant, the driver and the ticked companyductor.
A Domestic inquiry was thereafter held into the charges and the appellant having been found guilty the Corporation, through its Depot Manager, dismissed him by an order dated August 14, 1964.
The award of the Labour Court must therefore relate back to the date when the order of dismissal was passed on the termination of the Domestic inquiry.
Rejecting this companytention, this Court held The present is a case where the employer has held an inquiry though it was defective and has passed an order of dismissal and seeks approval of that order.
The employee therefore had numberopportunity to cross examine the witnesses before the Tribunal.
Parties thereafter led evidence before the Labour Court, on companysideration of which it held by an order dated August 18, 1967 that the appellant was guilty of the charges levelled against him and that in the circumstances of the case the punishment of dismissal was neither harsh number unjust.
The High Court by its order dated March 6, 1968 dismissed the petition in limine, though with a speaking order.
Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi who appeared as an amicus for the appellant raised two points for our companysideration in this appeal.
Thereafter on companying to the companyclusion that the employer had bona fide companye to the companyclusion that the employee was guilty i.e. there was numberunfair labour practice and numbervictimisation, the Labour Court would grant the approval which would relate back to the date from which the employer had ordered the dismissal.
By a preliminary order dated December 7, 1966 the Labour Court held that the Domestic tribunal did number hold a proper inquiry into the charges levelled against the appellant but that it was open to the parties to lead evidence before it on the merits of the case and to satisfy it whether the appellant was guilty of the charges and further whether the companyduct of the appellant was such as to call for an order of dismissal.
If the inquiry is number defective, the Labour Court has only to see whether there was a prima facie case for dismissal and whether the employer had companye to the bona fide companyclusion that the employee was guilty of misconduct.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 6th March, 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
The appellant has filed this appeal in forma pauperis by special leave of this Court.
As regards back wages, the Industrial Court held that the order of the Labour Court dated August 18, 1967 would relate back to the date when the appellant was dismissed by the Corporation and therefore the appellant was number entitled to back wages till the date when the Labour Court passed its final order.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Labour Court the appellant preferred a revision application to the Industrial Court, Indore, under section 66 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act.
The Industrial Court companyfirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and upheld the order of dismissal.
The appellant thereafter filed a petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Industrial Court.
Since it was the duty of the appellant as a Ticket Examiner to check whether the companyductor had companylected fare from all the passengers and in token thereof had issued tickets to them, a chargesheet was served on the appellant for breach of clauses 12 b and d of the Madhya Pradesh Standard Standing Orders which govern the matter by reason of Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment Standing Orders Rules, 1963.
On March 21, 1964 a bus belonging to the Corporation was checked by the Flying Squad when nine and half passengers out of 26 were found travelling without tickets.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
466 of 1970.
75 of 1968.
The appellant was on the bus in the discharge of his duties as a Ticket Examiner.
It was found that the companyductor had companylected the fare from all the 26 passengers who were travelling in the bus but had number issued tickets to 9 1/2 passengers.
He companytended in the first place that the charge made against the appellant does number amount to a major misconduct under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment Standing Orders Rules, 1963 and secondly that in any event, the Labour Court having found that the Domestic tribunal had failed to hold a proper inquiry, the appellant was entitled to back wages until the final decision of the Labour Court.
Ram Punjwani and Rameshwar Nath for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. The appellant was working as a Ticket Examiner in the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at its Nagpur Depot.
Petition No.
In an appeal by special leave against the decision of the Labour Court, it was companytended in this Court on behalf of the employee that since the Domestic inquiry was found defective, the Labour Court, even if it was of the opinion that the dismissal was justified, should have ordered the dismissal from the date of its award and number from the date when the Regional Representative passed the order of dismissal.
K. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar for the Appellant.
The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment Standing Orders Rules, 1963 provide by Rule 7, to the extent material, that the Standard Standing Orders for all undertakings to which the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 26 of 1961, applies shall be those set out in the Annexures to the Rules.
The employee challenged the order of dismissal by filing an application under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground that the Station Manager was biased against him and therefore the inquiry was vitiated as being companytrary to the principles of natural justice.
The Labour Court took the view that the employees companytention that the Station Manager was biased against him companyld number be brushed aside lightly but it went on to hold that even if there was some violation the principles of natural justice on account of the bias of the Inquiry Officer, the Company was entitled to adduce, as it did, all the evidence before it in support of its action and therefore it was open to the Labour Court to decide on that evidence whether the action was justified and whether the approval to the order of dismissal should be granted.
