The Industrial Tribunal, by separate awards accepted the companytention of the workmen that they were number given due opportunity to companytest the enquiry and therefore held that the orders of dismissal were opposed to the principles of natural justice.
After holding an inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 7.7.1991 holding the fourth respondent guilty of the charge.
The learned Single Judge, being of the view that the finding of the Tribunal was companytrary to the record, set aside the said finding in all the four awards.
An enquiry was held into those charges and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 16.12.1990 holding them guilty of the charges.
The appellate companyrt then examined the companytention based on Standing Order 14 e .
The appellant challenged the companymon order of the learned Single Judge in MAT No.80 83/2005.
It was of the view that though the workmen had number raised such a companytention before the Industrial Tribunal, there was numberneed to remand the matter to the Tribunal to companysider whether prior approval was in fact obtained before issuance of dismissal orders number any need to give any opportunity to the management to place necessary material, having regard to the fact that the matter was more than a decade old and two of the employees had already reached the age of superannuation and other two were about to reach the age of superannuation.
The facts in the last appeal relating to Bhupen Lal are similar.
A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petitions by order dated 9.12.2004.
Consequently the learned Single Judge quashed the orders of dismissal for want of approval under Standing Order 14 e and directed that the workmen be reinstated with all companysequential benefits as per the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
The four awards were challenged by the management in a companymon batch of writ petitions WP No.1941 44/1998 companytending that the enquiry was fair and proper and adequate opportunity was given to the employees.
But the learned Single Judge accepted the new companytention urged by the workmen and held that as there was numberapproval in regard to the dismissal as required under Standing Order 14 e , the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority had numbereffect in the eye of law.
Disputes were raised in regard to the said four dismissals and the appropriate government referred the disputes as to whether the dismissal of the workmen was justified and to what relief they were entitled, to the Industrial Tribunal.
The said order is challenged in these appeals by special leave.
He held that the Tribunal companymitted an error in number taking numberice of the fact that the workmen were given due opportunity to defend themselves in the domestic enquiry that though the Enquiry Officer had served several numberices directing them to appear in the enquiry, the workmen did number choose to appear in the enquiry and that therefore it companyld number be said that the enquiry was opposed to principles of natural justice.
Thereafter the General Manager by letter dated 19.7.1991 informed the workman that the management has agreed with the said findings of the Enquiry Officer and there were numberextenuating circumstances in his favour and companysequently he was dismissed from service with effect from that date.
Consequently it directed reinstatement of the workmen with full backwages from the date of their dismissal till the date of reinstatement.
It was also alleged that on 6.6.1990 the said workmen again kept the General Manager S.R. Singh under wrongful companyfinement in the Spinning Department and later at the Mill office and threatened him with dire companysequences if the charge sheet cum suspension in respect of one Jayaram was number withdrawn immediately and that they also used filthy language against him, shouted derogatory slogans and even prevented him from attending to calls of nature.
In the case of Bhupen Lal, the workman had in fact appeared and participated in the enquiry.
The appellate companyrt companyfirmed the finding of the learned Single Judge that adequate opportunity had been given to the workmen in the enquiry.
The Division Bench therefore upheld the order of the learned Single Judge.
The workmen however raised a fresh companytention at the hearing before the learned Single Judge that their orders of dismissal were illegal as they were number approved by the Manager of the establishment or the employer as required by Standing Order 14 e which reads thus No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman companycerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and is given an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him.
He was issued a charge sheet dated 14.5.1991 alleging that earlier on the same day, he was sitting idle and smoking in the vice room of the spinning department, and when he was asked by the Chief Engineer to attend to his job, he failed to companyply and later, he followed the Chief Engineer to the batching line and started abusing him in filthy language and threatened him with dire companysequences and also tried to physically assault the Chief Engineer but was prevented by other workmen and the said acts companystituted a misconduct.
The appellant companytended that the workmen ought number to have been permitted to raise a new companytention alleging number compliance with Standing Order 14 e for the first time before the High Court, thereby denying them an opportunity to establish that there was numberviolation of the said Standing Order.
The approval of the Manager of the establishment and, where there is numbermanager, of the employer, is required in every case of dismissal, and when circumstances appear to warrant it, the manager or the employer may, whether an appeal has or has number been preferred, institute independent inquiries before dealing with the charges against a workman.
The first three appeals relate to a charge sheet dated 7.6.1990 issued to Kashinath, Keshab Lal Shaw and Shambu Nath alleging that on 2.6.1990, they along with some other workmen kept the General Manager of the companypany S. R. Singh under wrongful companyfinement, misbehaved with him and used filthy language and threatened to assault him physically if the charge sheet cum suspension earlier issued to some workmen was number withdrawn.
A Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the four appeals by order dated 8.9.2005.
Kashinath, Keshab Lal Shaw, Shambu Nath and Bhupen Lal the fourth respondent in the four appeals were workmen of the appellant.
Though the appellant employer initially appeared in the reference cases before the Industrial Tribunal, it did number subsequently companytest the matters.
V. RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
Heard learned companynsel.
The appeals involve a companymon question.
Thereafter by orders dated 21.12.1991, the appellant informed the said three workmen that the management had companysidered and accepted the proceedings and findings of the Enquiry Officer, and having found that there were numberextenuating circumstances, had decided to dismiss them from service for proved misconduct with effect from that date.
