http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  892 of 2008

PETITIONER: Employers Management West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO Ltd.

RESPONDENT: Concerned Workman,Ram Pravesh Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/2008

BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT       (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13281 of 2006) BHAN, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Management is in appeal.

3.      The respondent-workman was working as Senior Dumper  Operator under the Management of the appellant. The workman  was deputed at Open Caste Mine, West Bokaro on 2nd of March,  1994 during the first shift from 5.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.  Respondent left the place of his duty before the end of his  shift duty and went to Rajiv Nagar area where Shri Harbans  Kumar, Senior Officer (Security), along with a number of  security personnel and other workers, was discharging his  duties in connection with prevention of unauthorized  constructions on the company\022s land. The respondent-workman  along with few others approached Shri Harbans Kumar and  shouted at him using abusive language and threatened him  with dire consequences in case the unauthorized  construction was demolished. The respondent-workman, on  being asked not to behave in the said manner, assaulted  Shri Harbans Kumar with his hands and also resorted to  brick-bating as a result of which Shri Harbans Kumar and  Shri S.P. Yadav sustained injuries on the face and other  parts of the body.

4.      Appellant-Management issued a charge sheet to the  respondent-workman whereby he was asked to show-cause as to  why disciplinary action should not be taken against him  under Clause 22(18) and 22(5) of the Standing Orders of the  Company for the following misconduct: -

\023(a) leaving work without permission  (b) indecent, riotous and disorderly      behaviour with a superior as well     as co-worker.\024

5.      The respondent-workman submitted his reply denying all  charges brought against him. The Management decided to  conduct an enquiry and accordingly appointed Shri  Madhusudan Das, Deputy Manager (Personnel) as Enquiry  Officer. The Enquiry Officer after giving full opportunity  to the respondent-workman came to the conclusion that the  charges levelled against him were established beyond  reasonable doubt and submitted his report.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

6.      The Punishing Authority after going through the  Enquiry Report and related enquiry papers, satisfied  himself that charges levelled against the respondent had  been established and recommended the dismissal of the  respondent from the Company with immediate effect. The  workman was accordingly dismissed on 23/25th of April, 1994.

7.      The respondent raised an industrial dispute and the  Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of its  powers under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947 (for short \021the Act\022), referred the following  dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication:

\023THE SCHEDULE       \023Whether the action of the Management  of West Bokaro Collieries of M/s. TISCO Ltd.  PO-Ghatotand, Dist. Hazaribagh in dismissing  Shri Ram Pravesh, Ex. Sr. Dumper Operator  from the services of the Company w.e.f  25.4.1994 is justified? If not, to what  relief the workman is entitled?\024

8.      The respondent on 3rd of October, 2003, made a  statement before the Labour Court that he did not want to  challenge the legality, fairness and propriety of the  domestic enquiry. On this statement being made, the Labour  Court, after careful consideration of the facts and  circumstances and the submissions advanced by the Counsel  for the respondent, held that the domestic enquiry  conducted by the Management was fair, proper and in  accordance with the principles of natural justice. The  matter was adjourned to 14th of December, 2001 for hearing  argument on merit.

9.      The Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of  dismissal passed against the respondent by holding that the  Management had failed to substantiate the charges brought  against the concerned workman beyond reasonable doubt.  Accordingly, order of dismissal passed against the  concerned workman was set aside and he was ordered to be  reinstated with 50% back wages.  

10.     Management, thereafter, filed the Writ Petition before  the High Court which was dismissed by the Learned Single  Judge, aggrieved against which Management filed Letters  Patent Appeal which has also been dismissed by the impugned  order.        11.     Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Raju Ramachandran,  appearing for the Management submitted that the findings  recorded by the domestic Tribunal based on the evidence  cannot be set aside or interfered with by the Industrial  Tribunal or the Courts by substituting their substantive  opinion in place of the one arrived at by the domestic  Tribunal. It is further contended that the Tribunal applied  the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt which is  required to be proved in criminal cases whereas in the  domestic enquiry and Civil Courts, the standard of proof is  of preponderance of probabilities. It is further contended  that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the order of  acquittal passed in favour of the respondent by the  Criminal Court as in the criminal cases, the standard of  proof required to prove a charge is materially different  than in civil matters.       

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

12.     As against this, Learned Counsel for the respondent  contended that the Industrial Tribunal was fully justified  in coming to the different conclusions in exercise of its  powers under Section 11A of the Act.         13.     Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

14.     The Tribunal in its order on re-appreciation of  evidence came to the conclusion that in the absence of any  independent evidence other than of fellow workman, the  charge of indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour with  superior and co-worker was not proved. Insofar as the  absence from the duty is concerned, Tribunal came to the  conclusion that according to the workman, he had left the  place of work at 12.25 P.M. and as the incident allegedly  had taken place at 12.30 P.M., the respondent could not  have reached the place of incident at 12.30 P.M.  after  collecting his other associates. In para 14 of its order,  the Tribunal concluded that Management had failed to  substantiate the charges brought against the workman beyond  reasonable doubt.         15.     This Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC)  vs. A.T. Mane [(2005) 3 SCC 254], held that: -

     \023From the above it is clear that once a  domestic tribunal based on evidence comes to  a particular conclusion, normally it is not  open to the appellate tribunals and courts  to substitute their subjective opinion in  the place of the one arrived at by the  domestic tribunal. In the present case,  there is evidence of the inspector who  checked the bus which establishes the  misconduct of the respondent. The domestic  tribunal accepted that evidence and found  the respondent guilty. But the courts below  misdirected themselves in insisting on the  evidence of the ticketless passengers to  reject the said finding which, in our  opinion, as held by this Court in the case  of Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491] is not a  condition precedent. We may herein note that  the judgment of this Court in Rattan Singh   has since been followed by this Court in  Devendra Swamy vs. Karnataka SRTC [(2002) 9  SCC 644]\024          16.     In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vinod  Kumar [2007 (13) SCALE 690], this Court again observed that  in the absence of a challenge to the legality or fairness  of the domestic enquiry, the Court should be reluctant to  either interfere with the finding recorded by the Enquiry  Officer or the punishment awarded by the Punishing  Authority.         17.     After going through the order of the Industrial  Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has  interfered with the findings recorded by the domestic  Tribunal as if it was the Appellate Tribunal. There was  evidence present on record regarding indecent, riotous and  disorderly behaviour of the respondent towards his  superiors. The Management witnesses who were present at the  scene of occurrence have unequivocally deposed about the  misbehaviour of the respondent towards his superiors. Their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

evidence has been discarded by the Tribunal by observing  that in the absence of independent evidence, the statements  of the workmen who were present at the scene of occurrence  could not be believed. Industrial Tribunal fell in error in  discarding the evidence produced by the Management only  because the independent witnesses were not produced. It is  nobody\022s case that the independent witnesses were available  at the scene of occurrence and the Management had failed to  produce them. It is possible that at the time of  occurrence, only the workers of the Management and the  persons who were trying to put up the construction  unauthorizedly were the persons present and no independent  evidence was available. Statements of the fellow workmen  had established the misconduct of the respondent. Enquiry  Officer accepted the testimony of the witnesses produced by  the Management who had clearly implicated the respondent.  It was a legitimate conclusion which could be arrived at  and it would not be open to the Industrial Tribunal to  substitute the said opinion by its own opinion.          18.     Findings recorded by the Tribunal that the workman had  left the place of duty at 12.25 P.M. and, therefore, could  not have reached the place of occurrence at 12.30 P.M.  after collecting his other associates, is not based on any  evidence. The case of the Management is that the respondent  had left his place of duty at 12.05 P.M. and reached the  place of occurrence at 12.30 P.M. after collecting his  fellow workmen. There was sufficient time for the workman  to reach the place of occurrence within half an hour as the  distance between the place of duty and the place of  occurrence was only 1 k.m. The duty of the respondent- workman was upto 1.00 O\022clock. Even if, it is accepted that  he left the place of duty at 12.25 P.M., then also, he left  the place of duty during his duty hours.        19.     Tribunal has set aside the report of the Enquiry  Officer and the order of dismissal passed by the Punishing  Authority by observing that the charges against the  respondent were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has  repeatedly been held by this Court that the acquittal in a  criminal case would not operate as a bar for drawing up of  a disciplinary proceeding against a delinquent. It is well  settled principle of law that yardstick and standard of  proof in a criminal case is different from the one in  disciplinary proceedings. While the standard of proof in a  criminal case is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the  standard of proof in a departmental proceeding is  preponderance of probabilities.        20.     Learned Counsel for the respondent cited two cases \026  The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India  (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management & Ors. [(1973) 1 SCC 813]  and South Indian Cashew Factories Workers\022 Union vs. Kerala  State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd.& Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC  201], to contend that the Labour Court in exercise of its  jurisdiction under Section 11A could have come to a  different conclusion. There is no quarrel with this  proposition of law. The Labour Court could have awarded  lesser punishment in the given facts and circumstances of  the case. In a case where two views are possible on the  evidence on record, then the Industrial Tribunal should be  very slow in coming to a conclusion other than the one  arrived at by the domestic Tribunal by substituting its  opinion in place of the opinion of the domestic Tribunal.        

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

21.     Labour Court fell into the factual as well as legal  error in setting aside the findings recorded by the  domestic Tribunal. Learned Single Judge as well as the  Division Bench have simply affirmed the findings recorded  by the Tribunal.

22.     For the reasons stated above, we accept this appeal,  set aside the order passed by the High Court as well as the  Labour Court. Accordingly, the Order passed by the domestic  Tribunal and the Punishing Authority is restored. There  should be no orders as to costs.