Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the employee, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The Assistant Personnel Manager who conducted the enquiry submitted a report holding that the charges were proved in the enquiry. After considering the findings of the enquiry officer and seriousness of the charges leveled against the employee, the Management imposed a punishment by reverting the employee as factory clerk, but the salary he was drawing was protected.

The Union took the matter to the Labour Court which found that the employee is a workman as defined under the Act and industrial dispute is validly raised. With regard to the enquiry, it found that enquiry was fair and proper and findings are not perverse, but the Labour Court set aside the enquiry report on the ground that the enquiry officer was biased as enquiry was conducted by an employee of the Corporation and he also made certain observations against the workman , which were not necessary for considering whether there was misconduct or not.   The Labour Court, thereafter, posted the case for fresh evidence.

The witnesses examined in the enquiry were again examined. Labour Court re-appraised the evidence and found that the charges were not proved and hence the punishment imposed was set aside by the award.

The Original petition filed by the Management against the Labour Court award was dismissed by the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court holding that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to go into all the aspects of the case and come to a conclusion based on evidence and other materials.

A Writ Appeal was filed before the Division bench by the Management   submitting that the Labour Court having found that the enquiry conducted was fair and proper, there was no scope for re-appraising the evidence or to consider the adequacy of punishment. Further, the Labour Court had erred in holding that since enquiry was conducted by an officer of the Management, the enquiry was vitiated and also because he made some observations against the workman that did affect the validity of the enquiry. The Division Bench accepted the above stand.

Questioning correctness of the conclusions of the Division Bench, an appeal was filed by the General Secretary of the Union before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the finding of the Labour Court that enquiry was vitiated because it was conducted by an officer of the Management cannot be sustained in view of the following decisions:

•  Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Labour Court [(1970) 1 LLJ 23] - Merely because the Enquiry Officer is an employee of the Management it cannot lead to the assumption that he is bound to decide the case in favour of the Management.

As regards the other ground found by the Labour Court against the enquiry officer that he made some unnecessary observations and, therefore, he was biased, the Supreme Court while holding that the same cannot vitiate the order of the Enquiry officer noted:-

•  the plea that enquiry officer was biased was not raised during the enquiry or pleadings before the Labour Court or in earlier proceedings before the High Court. The bias of the enquiry officer has to be specifically pleaded and proved before the adjudicator.

•  Further, the Labour Court itself found that the enquiry officer relied on the evidence adduced in the enquiry and its findings were not perverse. After such a finding, even if he has stated some unwarranted observations, it cannot be stated that report is biased.

•  In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. S.C. Prasad [(1969) 3 SCC 372] it was held that : "Industrial Tribunals, while considering the findings of domestic enquiries, must bear in mind that persons appointed to hold such enquiries are not lawyers and that such enquiries are of a simple nature where technical rules as to evidence and procedure do not prevail. Such findings are not to be lightly brushed aside merely because the enquiry officers, while writing their reports, have mentioned facts which are not strictly borne out by the evidence before them."

The Supreme Court while concluding that the order of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity observed:-

•  Section 11A of the Act gives ample power to the Labour Court to re-appraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit in appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing punishment. However, Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is only applicable in the case of dismissal or discharge of a workman as clearly mentioned in the Section itself.

•  Since Section 11A is not applicable in the present case, Labour Court has no power to re-appraise the evidence to find out whether the findings of the enquiry officer are correct or not or whether the punishment imposed is adequate or not.

•  Although Labour Court can interfere if the findings are perverse, since in the present case there is a clear finding that the findings are not perverse and principles of natural justice were complied with while conducting enquiry, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the finding and re-appraised the evidence.

•  Finally, since the Labour Court found that the enquiry is fair and proper, in the absence of any allegations of victimization or unfair labour practice, it had no power to interfere with the punishment imposed.

The appeal was dismissed as being sans merit.

(See 2006-HRIOL-14-SC-SERVICE in ' LAWS 4 U')