http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2435 of 2006

PETITIONER: Workmen of Balmadies Estates

RESPONDENT: Management Balmadies Estate and Ors.  

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/01/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Madras High  Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellant.  The  writ appeal was filed against the order of a learned Single Judge  of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 589 of 1987.

2.      Two workmen-Stephen and Nallusami were issued with  charge sheets on 15.12.1980 wherein it was alleged that the  Manager had received information that they had stolen 100  litres of gramoxine weedicide chemical belonging to the estate  from the store room during the period between 29.11.1980 and  2.12.1980.  The two employees replied to that notice stating  that they had not committed any misconduct as alleged in the  notice. Thereafter, an enquiry was held in which they  participated till the evidence of M.Ws. 1 and 2 was recorded.   They also cross examined those two witnesses.

3.      After cross examination MW2, Stephen stated that he had  no confidence in the enquiry and walked out of the enquiry.   Thereafter the other workman, Nallusami made a statement in  which he stated that on 6.12.1980 while he was doing work in  the estate, some workmen were asked to meet the Manager and  at that time one lady has identified him to have committed the  theft.  He added that she was following the instructions of  somebody else and that he had pleaded with the police that he  had not committed the theft.  Thereafter he stated that the  police beat him and again he was identified by that lady and  thereafter he was asked as to who were all with him for the  crime.  He then stated that supervisor Stephen was with him.   MW1 was one Easwaradas.  As noted above MW1, was cross  examined by both Stephen and Nallusami.  Neither of them  questioned the correctness of the statement of MW1 that they  had confessed to the police to the theft in his presence when he  went to his house and opened the lock of the store room.  The  statement of MW1 was thus uncontroverted.

4.      MW 2 Seetharaman confirmed the statement of MW1.   After the witnesses gave the evidence and have been cross  examined, the delinquents did not take part in the enquiry.  Thereafter three other witnesses were examined, one of them  was Mary who had identified the accused persons.  The enquiry  officer at the conclusion of the enquiry held that the two  delinquents had committed the theft and thereafter the  employees were dismissed from service by order dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

28.3.1981.  At the instance of the workmen, the dispute was  referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Coimbatore.   A  preliminary dispute was raised about the validity of the enquiry.  The labour court rejected the stand and by a detailed order  dated 31.12.1984 held that the domestic enquiry was  conducted on proper lines and keeping in view the principles of  natural justice the final award was made on 6.8.1985.  The  Labour court held that there was no direct evidence to show  that the two workmen had committed theft.  It was held that the  employer had not produced stock register and there was no  material to show that as to how many times store room was  open prior to 4.12.1980.  The Labour Court finally concluded  that the evidence was not properly appreciated by the enquiry  officer and the finding of guilt was based on very slender  evidence.  The award was challenged by the employer and the  learned Single Judge held that the Labour Court had failed to  take note of the direct evidence more particularly the evidence  of MWs. 1&2 and held that the appreciation of evidence by the  Labour Court was perverse and the Labour Court\022s interference  with the order of termination was insupportable in law.   Before  the High Court in the writ appeal the stand was that the  evidence of MWs. 1&2 should not have been treated as direct  evidence, it was also submitted that under Section 11(A) of the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the \021Act\022) the Labour  Court has the power to re-appreciate  the evidence.  Therefore,  the High Court should not have interfered with the order of the  Labour Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution  of India, 1950 (in short the \021Constitution\022).       5.      The High Court by the impugned order did not find any  substance and dismissed the Writ appeal.       6.      Learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated the stand  taken before the High Court.       7.      Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order  of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench.  The power  of the Labour Court under the Act has expanded vastly after the  introduction of Section 11A of the Act into the Statute.  This  was emphasized by this Court in The Workmen of M/s.  Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The  Management and Others [1973 (1) SCC 813] and Sadhu Ram v.  Delhi Transport Corporation [1983 (4) SCC 156] and Indian  Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers\022 Union and Anr.  [2000 (4) SCC 245].       8.      It is fairly well settled now that in view of the wide power of  the Labour Court it can, in an appropriate case, consider the  evidence which has been considered by the domestic Tribunal  and in a given case on such consideration arrive at a conclusion  different from the one arrived at by the Domestic Tribunal.  The  assessment of evidence in a domestic enquiry is not required to  be made by applying the same yardstick as a Civil Court could  do when a lis is brought before it.  The Indian Evidence Act,  1872 (in short the \021Evidence Act\022) is not applicable to the  proceeding in a domestic enquiry so far as the domestic  enquiries are concerned, though principles of fairness are to  apply.  It is also fairly well settled that in a domestic enquiry  guilt may not be established beyond reasonable doubt and the  proof of misconduct would be sufficient.  In a domestic enquiry  all materials which are logically probative including hearsay  evidence can be acted upon provided it has a reasonable nexus  and credibility.       9.      In J.D. Jain v. Management of State Bank of India and

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

Anr. (1982) 1 SCC 143 it was held, almost in a similar factual  background, that confessional evidence and circumstantial  evidence, despite lack of any direct evidence, was sufficient to  hold the delinquent guilty of misconduct and to justify the order  of termination that had been passed.         10.     As noted above what MWs. 1 & 2 had stated was to the  effect that the confession was made by the two delinquents in  their presence and also in the presence of others.  There was no  cross examination with regard thereto.  There was no complaint  made by the delinquents even after the charge sheet was filed  that the confessions had been extracted from them and/or that  they had been compelled to make such a statement by reason of  any threat hold out. Even when they cross examined the  witnesses, they did not even suggest that what had been stated  by the witnesses are incorrect. The findings of the Labour Court  were perverse and can be termed to be based on misconception  of law. The High Court, therefore, rightly observed that the  evidence could not have been brushed aside by the Labour  Court in the manner done.  That being so, the appeal is without  merit, deserves dismissal, which we direct. No costs.