There being numberfinding by the Enquiry Officer that Gurubux Singh was guilty of threatening and intimidating Mr. Chakravarty, Chargeman, the General Manager was number entitled to take such a misconduct into companysideration.
The formal dismissal order that was drawn up on the basis of this finding and served on him after stating that he was found guilty of the first three charges stated that he was found guilty of threatening and intimidating Mr. Chakravarty, chargeman, who was companypelled to stop work on 21 5 58.
On his behalf it has been urged that though the enquiry officers report says that he was guilty of threatening and intimidating Charan Singh the General Manager misled himself into thinking that he had threatened and intimidated Mr. Chakravarty, Chargeman.
73,76, 77, 79 82, 84 90 of 1958.
Though Mr. Gurubux Singh created a scene on the 11th June, 1958, and left the place of enquiry, still he was given a chance and the enquiry was held at a later date.
The 14 appellants, all workmen in M s. Tata Locomotive Engineering Co., Ltd., Jamshedpur, were dismissed under the orders of the companypanys management on the result of an enquiry held against them.
The charge sheet against S. B. Nath accused him of four acts of misconduct Participating in an illegal strike Leaving your appointed place of duty Inciting other employees to strike work Threatening and intimidating other workers.
On an examination of the Enquiry Officers report it is however obvious that there is a clerical error in the companycluding portion of the report in stating the finding as regards the fourth charge as threatening and intimidating Charan Singh to stop work .
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated 2nd March, 1959, of the Labour Court, Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in Misc.
Against this appellant four acts of misconduct were alleged in the charge sheet Participation in an illegal strike Inciting other employees in the other sections of the Auto Division to strike work Leaving your appointed place of duty or work without permission Threatening and intimidating the other workers in the Repair Shop.
The four acts of misconduct alleged in the chargesheet against Gurbux Singh were Participating in an illegal strike Leaving your appointed place of duty Inciting other employees to strike work Threatening and intimidating other workers.
The dismissal order after mentioning that he was found guilty of the first three charges further states that he was found guilty of the following acts of misconduct threatening and intimidating the workers in the Repair Shop and deliberately preventing the man in charge of the Compressor in the Repair Shop from carrying out his duty.
Charan Singh was really one of the striking workers and there was numberquest ion of intimidating him.
Having gone through the evidence recorded against him during the enquiry, I agree with the findings of the C. P. 0.
The charge sheet after alleging the four acts of misconduct went on to give particulars of these charges.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
There is numbersubstance therefore, in the companytention that the acts of misconduct on which the dismissal order was based included one number mentioned in the chargesheet.
threatening and intimidating the other workers in the Repair Shop the particulars were in thesewords By threatening and intimidating others in the repair shop you stopped them from working and also you took the Compressor man by his hand and got the Compressor stopped.
Sohrab D. Vimadalal, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents.
March 25.
The managers order on these is in these words I have gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the proceedings of the Inquiry.
The argument is that the charge as set out in the charge sheet does number mention this act of deliberately preventing the man in charge of the Compressor in the Repair Shop from carrying out his duty.
That is the principal question raised in this appeal.
The Enquiry Officers report found him guilty of the following acts Participating in an illegal strike Leaving his place of duty without permission Inciting other employees to strike work and Threatening and intimidating Mr. Charan Singh to stop work.
As regards the fourth charge, viz.,
Cases Nos.
The statement in the dismissal order as regards his being quilty of deliberately preventing the man in charge of the Compressor in the Repair Shop from carrying out his duty has in fact been mentioned in the charge sheet, though in slightly different words.
101 of 1960.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. When the management of an industry holds an enquiry into the charges against a workman for the purpose of deciding what action if any, should be taken against him, has the workman a right to be represented by a representative of his Union at the enquiry ?
K. Dutt and B. P. Maheshwari for the appellants.
C. Chatterjee, A .
The charges being of a very serious nature, I order that he be dismissed from the services of the companypany with effect from the date of the charge sheet.
