QOURT REPORTS v. ITS WORKMEN

from an industrial dispute between the appellant, the · Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd., and the respondents, its workmen. The appellant is a private limited. company and carries on the business of printing and publishing newspapers, namely, 'Ananda Bazar Pat- rika' which is a Bengali Dailv, 'Desh' which is a Bengali Weekly, and 'Hindustan Standard' which is an English daily newspaper. Mr. Pulakesh De Saro kar was appointed by the management of the appel- lant as Journalist ill March, 1940, and has been 196J 1fnGni11 Bazer P.trih <P) ltd. v. WorAmen ii S.C.R. SUPRENIE COURT REPORTS 603 working with the · appellant since then until he was discharged from service by the appellant on May 15, 1958. The Union of the appellant's employees took up this discharge and raised an industrial dispute about it. In was urged by the Union that the dis· charge of Mr. Sarkar's services was illegal and that he was entitled to reinstatement and/or compensa- tion. This dispute was referred by the Government of West Bengal for adjudication to the Second Labour its award Court on September 25, 1958. By pronounced on December 8, 1959, the Labour Court has directed the appellant to reinstate Mr. Sarkar and pay him his emoluments for the period It appears that on of his forced unemployment. January 27, 1959, the appellant had paid moneys to Mr. Sarkar, and so, the award directs that in paying emoluments to Mr. Sarkar under the pro- visions of the award, adjustments should be made in respect of the amounts already paid by the appel- It is against this award that the appel- lant to him. lant has come to this Court by special leave. The facts leading to the present industrial dis· pute between the parties are not many and can be very briefly stated at the outset. It appears that on December 16, 1957, Mr. Shibdas Bhattacharjee who was the Chief Reporter of the Ananda Bazar Patrika, proceeded on leave. Before going on leave, appointed Mr. Madhu- Mr. Bhattacharjee sudan Chakravorty to work as Chief Reporter tempo- . rarily during his absence. Accordingly, he wrote a letter to that effect and sent its copies to the Editor of the Ananda Bazar Patrika, to the News Editor of the said Paper, to the Chief Accountant and to the Reporting Department. The letter was addressed to the Managing Director of the Ananda Bazar Patrika, and a copy of it was hung on the Notice Board of the. Reporting Section of the Ananda Bazar · Jl{jj Ano1Ula Bu;or Patrika CP) Ltd. •• Workmnz 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964) VOL. Mr. Sarkar who was working as one of the Reporters took exception to this arrangement and interviewed the Managing Director to request him to cancel the said arrangement. The Managing Direc- tor told him that the letter had been written by Mr. Bhattacharjee at the instance of the Accounts Depart- ment, because the Accounts Department wanted that if any arrangement was made during leave vacancy, it should be evidenced by a document in order to enable the Accounts Department to deal with the acting person so far as financial transactions were concerned. Mr. Sarkar was not satisfied with the interview and so, he proceeded to write a letter to the Managing Director and hung up a copy of this In this letter he took letter on the Notice Board. strong exception to the arrangement made by Mr. Bhattacharjee and expressed his indignation against the letter which Mr. Bhattacharjee had written to evidence the said arrangement. "I find no reason", said Mr. Sarkar, in that letter, "to honour that spu· rious letter and so, I would be standing on my own right and merit, decide my assignments myself and act accordingly till the Chief Reporter resumes his office." This letter was written on December 20, 1957. Copy of this Jetter was sent by Mr. Sarkar to the Editor, to the News Editor and to the Repor· ting Department. True to the threat held out by him in his letter, Mr. Sarkar appeared to ignore the assignments allo- tted to him by the Acting Chief Reporter, Mr. Chak· ravorty. When this matter was brought to the notice letter of the Managing Director, he wrote a to. Mr. Sarkar on December 31, 1957, calling upon him action . should misconduct and subversive conduct. Thereupon, Mr. the Managing Director that he was quite willing to remove his letter from the Notice Boarcj and he gave him an account of to how cause why taken · against . him for his Sarkar, .4tUUUia Bt.::•r P•triko (P) lid v. Workm111 3 s.c.R. SUPRBME COURT RBPORTS 605 the work which he had assigned to himself between December 16 to December 31, 1957. Meanwhile the Acting Chief Reporter comp- lained to the Managing Director that Mr. Sarkar was ignoring the assignments allotted to him. Ulti- mately. the Managing Director wrote to Mr. Sarkar on January 11, 1958, that in view of the defiant attitude · adopted by him, the Managing Director was compelled to call upoq Mr. Sarkar to show cause _ why he should not be dismissed for his insubordina· tion. On January 12, 1958, Mr. Sarkar gave an elaborate explanation of his conduct. Since explanation was not treated by the Managing Direc· tor as satisfactory, he informed Mr. Sarkar by his letter of January 29, 1958, that an enquiry would be held against him and that he should appear be· fore Mr. S. K. Basu, Editor of the Hindustan Stand· ard, in his room on February 1, 1958 at l P.M. Mr. Basu then held an enquiry into the charges already supplied to Mr. Sarkar. At this enquiry, Mr. Sarkar elaborately cross-examined the witnesses who gave evidence against him and gave his own evidence. The principal question which was refer- red to the enquiry officer was whether Mr. Sarkar had flouted the lawful orders given to him by the Acting Chief Reporter? The enquiry officer consi- dered the evidence, and came to the conclusion that Mr. Sarkar was guilty of deliberate disobedience of the lawful orders of the Acting Chief Reporter who had been properly appointed. This report was made on April 14, 1958. The management of the appellant then consi- dered the report, examined the evidence led at the enquiry, and came to the conclusion that Mr. Sarkar was guilty of gross misconduct and deserved to be dismissed, but in view of the fact that he had served the Paper for a long period, the management deci- ded to discharge him from service. Accordingly, on • 1963 Annnda Ha<.or Palrika r P) ltd. •• Workm111 6of3 SUPREME COOR t REPORTS [1964] Ydt.; May 15, 1958, the management wrote a letter to Mr. Sarkar that ·his services had been terminated from May 16, 1958. Mr. Sarkar with effect was given one month's pay in lieu of notice, and. he was advised to collect his dues, including wages ear- ned by him, gratuity and one month's pay in lieu of notice from the cash office on May 19, 1958, at 11 A.M. The letter also told Mr. Sarkar that the Provident Fund authorities had been advised regar· ding the termination of his service and that, in due course, the Provident Fund amount due to him would be paid. Broadly stated, these are the facts which give rise to the present dispute between the appellant and the Union which took up Mr. Sarkar's case. The extent of the jurisdiction which a Labour Court or an industrial Tribunal can exercise in dea- ling with such disputes is well-settled. If the ter- mination of an industrial employee's services has been proceeded by a proper domestic enquiry which has been held in accordance with the rules of . na- tural justice and the conclusions reached at the said enquiry are not perverse the Tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety or the correctness of the said If, . on the other hand, in terminating conclusions. the services of the employee, the management has acted maliciously or vindictively or has been actuated by a desire to punish the employee for his trade union activities, the Tribunal would be entitled to give adequate protection to the employee by ordering his reinstatement, or directing in his favour payment of compensation; but if the enquiry has been proper and the conduct of the management in dismissing the employee is not mflla fide, then the Tribunal cannot interfere with the conclusions of the enquiry officer, or with the orders passed by the ma- nagement after accepting the said conclusions. In the present case, the Labour Court appears to have taken the view that the enquiry was not fair lff3 JMado. B.z11r P .... (P) Lt,, •• W•hu11 J. 3 S.C.R. SUPRENIE COURT REPORTS 601 and bad not been conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Having reached this con· clusion, the Tribunal proceeded to consider merits of the controversy between the parties and has recorded its findings after appreciating the evi· dence led before it by the respective parties in support It has held that Mr. Sarkar was of their contentions. not justified in hanging up his. letter on the Notice Board. but it took the view that the management should not have taken action against him in view of the fact that Mr. Sarkar had removed the letter as soon as he learnt that the management took excep- tion to his conduct. According to the Labour Court, Mr. Bhattacharjee was not authorised to appoint Mr. Chakravorty as the Acting Chief Reporter during his period of absence on leave, and so, it thought that Mr. Chakravony was not clothed with lawful authority to allot assignments to Mr. Sarkar during In regard to the ques- Mr. Bhattacharjee's absence. tion that Mr. Sarkar had decided his own assign- ments, the Labour Court was not satisfied with the whole of the story deposed to by the appellant's witnesses and in any event, it held that the explana- tion given by Mr. Sarkar in that behalf was not unreasonable. It is on these findings that the order of reinstatement has been passed by the Labour Court in favour of Mr. Sarkar. The first question which falls for our decision is whether the Labour Court was right in holding that the enquiry conducted by Mr. Basu was not a fair enquiry. In support of this conclusion, the Labour Court has observed that Mr. Basu had not al- lowed Mr. Sarkar "to examine a single witness on his behalf", and had some very relevant questions put by Mr. Sarkar iF1 cross-examination of the appellant's witnesses. It has also stated that the punishment meted out to Mr. Sarkar is far too severe and it thought that it was necessary for the appellant the Editor before deciding upon tac to consult 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964) VOL. '/963 An,,;,. IJaz•r Potriko (P) Ltd, ' v. W1rtm1n punishment which should be imposed on Mr. Sarkar. These facts, according to the Labour Court, betrayed mala fides of the appellant in this case, and so, it was not prepared to accept the findings arrived at the domestic enquiry. Taking the first point about the failure of Mr. Basu to allow Mr. Sarkar to examine even a single witness on his behalf, it is that the Labour Court should have made an observation which gives an impression that Mr. Sarkar wanted to examine a large number of witnesses of whom not even.a single witness was allowed to be examined. The observation made by the Labour Court is mis· leading. It is true that at one stage Mr. Sarkar stated that he had filed a list of witnesses, but that list is not on the record before us. What is on the record before us, however, unambiguously shows th\lt Mr. Sarkar wanted to examine only one witness and In that is the Editor of the Ananda Bazar Patrika. any case, there can be no doubt that he pressed his claim for examining only one witness. This is un· the record kept by Mr. ambiguously proved by Basu during the course. of the domestic enquiry and by the statement made by Mr. Sarkar before the "The only witness", said Mr. Labour Court itself. Sarkar before. the Labour Court. "l cited in the domestic enquiry was not allowed by the enquiry it is unreasonable to make a officer." Therefore, sweeping statement that Mr. Sarkar was not allowed to examine a single witness. The true position is that only one witness was intended to .be examined by Mr. Sarkar and Mr. Basu did not allow that. It appears from the proceedings of the domestic enquiry that Mr. Basu took the view that on the narrow question which he had been called upcin to consider • the Editor would have been able to give no material assistance, and so, he th0ught that the. request of Mr. Sarkar to examine him could not be granted. There can be no doubt that at the domestic enquiry ., ... u8- l•lrik4 (I') Lttl. y, IYor.imca 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 609 it is competent to the enquiry officer to refuse to examine a witness if he bona fide comes to the con- clusion that the said witness would be irrelevant If the refusal to examine such a or immaterial. witness, or to allow other evidence to be led appears to be the result of the de&ire on the part ofthe enquiry officer to deprive the person charged or an opportunity to establish his innocence, that of course, would be a very serious matter. But in the present case, one has merely to look at the lengthy record o( the enquiry to be satisfied that Mr. Basu conducted the enquiry elaborately and allowed Mr. Sarkar fullest latitude to cross-examine the management'• witnesses; the enquiry was conducted from day to day and the record shows how elaborately Mr. Sarkar has utilised his right of cross-examination in dealing with the management's witnesses. Therefore, we do not think that in refu, ing Mr. Sarkar's request to exa- mine the Editor,. the enquiry officer can be said to have acted capriciously or mala He seems to have thought honestly that the said witness would not be material or relevant. That being so, we do that this circumstance can render the not think enquiry unfair. this criticism The other criticism made by the Labour Court against the said enquirv is that some very relevant In our questions had been disallowed by Mr. Basil. opinion, is wholly misconceived. We have looked at the proceedings of the enquiry and we are satisfied that most of the questions which were di•allowed were properly disallowed ; in fact Mr. Chatterjee has not been able to show how the criticism 111ade bv the Labour Coort in this part or its award is justified. Some of the questions put by Mr. Sarkar to the were not only irrelevant, but wholly unfair, and so, it was the duty of Mr. Basu to disallow those questions. Besides, in deal- ing with this aspect of the matter, the Labour Court should not have overlooked the fact that relevance 116!1 Atta,.da Patrilla ( P) Ltd. y, Workm111 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [11164] VOL. of questions had to be decided by Mr. Basu who was conducting the enquiry; and even if the Lnbour Court took the view that some questions which were disallowed were relevant, that would not necessarily make the enquiry unfair or improper unless of course, in disallowing the relevant questions, it can be shown that Mr. Basu was acting mala fide. There- fore, this criticism also is of no avail. Then, the Labour Court has observed that it was the duty of the Management to have consulted the Editor before . deciding upon the punishment to be meted out to Mr. Sarkar. We are surprised that the Labour Court should have treated this as a valid reason for impeaching the fairness of the enquiry. We do not understand how it was necessary or obli- g<"tory for the management to consult. the Editor before taking any action against Mr. Sarkar. Besides, it is significant that though the management accepted the finding of Mr. Basu that Mr. Sarkar was guilty of gross misconduct, it has purported to act fairly by Mr. Sarkar inasmuch as it took into account his long association with the paper, and so, imtead of dismis- from service. sing him, it merely discharged him Therefore, we have no doubt that the ground given by the Labour Court that the failure to consult the Editor made the conduct of the management mala- fide, is wholly unsustainable. It docs appear that an argument was urged before the Labour Court that the enquiry officer being an outsider, the enquiry was void ab ini tio. This objection had been over-ruled by the Labour Court and, in our opinion, the Labour Court was right. It also appears that it was urged before the Labour Court by the respondents that Mr. Basu bore malice to Mr. Sarkar because of an incident which had taken place in regard to the management of the Provident Fund of the employees of the Ananda Bazar Patrika. It does appear that Mr. Basu and the Managing Direc- tor of the Ananda Bazar Patrika were the Trustees of 196J J.•afh Bdt4' P•ttit• ( P) '"· •• ..... b,,. Glj,.dr•1UiYr J. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 611 the said Fund along with 3 other Trustees and the conduct of the Trustees in allowing a fairly large amount of this Trust Fund as a loan to the manage- ment was criticised by the members of the Fund, and in consequence of the agitation carried on in that behalf, Mr. Basu who was originally the Trustee of the Fund was not elected at the next elections. This dispute, however, was amicably settled and the parties agreed to terms of settlement on March 7 /9, It was urged by Mr. Sarkar that since 1957. the agitation he had taken a leading part against the conduct of the Trustees in making a loan from the Provident Fund to the management, Mr. Basu and the Managing Director were hostile to him. Even this argument has not been accepted by the Labour Court on the ground that Mr. Sarkar had raised no contention of this kind at the time of the enquiry. Apart from this technical aspect, however, we are satisfied that there is no evidence to show that Mr.Basu or the Managing Director of the Ananda Bazar Patrika bore any ill-will to Mr. Sarkar. In fact, the evidence indicates that Mr. Sarkar is con- veniently over-rating the part played by him in the agitation in regard to the said impugned transaction of loan, Therefore, the Labour Court was, in our opinion, right in rejecting this contention. The position, thus is that the conclusion of the Labour Court that the enquiry was not fair and that fid,e in discharging the appellant has acted mala Mr. Sarkar cannot be sustained. We have repeatedly pointed out that though industrial adjudication can and must protect ind·1strial employees from victimi- sation, a finding as to mala jide8 or victimisation should be drawn only where evidence has been led to justifiy it; such a finding should not be made either In our in a causal manner or light-heartedly. opinion, no material was produced before Labour Court in the present proceedings to justify its finding either that the 11 nquiry was unfair, or ..i...us._ l'•ailco (I') LIJ. •• Work..,. Gdi-"••""'"' '· 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964) VOL. that the conduct of the 1 appellant Mr. Sarkar was mala fide • in discharging As soon as we reach this con cl us ion, it follows that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the dispute between the parties, and to enquire whether the findings recorded by the domestic tribunal were right or not. We have, however, heard Mr. Chatterjee at length on question as to whether Mr. Bhattacharjee had authority to appoint Mr. Chakravorty as an Acting Chief Reporter during his absence on leave, because it appeared to us that if evidence clearly showed that the appointment made by Mr. Bhattacharjee was contrary to the rules prevailing in the institution or was inconsistent with the practice, it may perhaps should have justify his grievance that Mr. Basu allowed the Editor to be examined on the assum- ption that the Editor could have spoken to the prevailing rules or practice in that behalf. Mr. Sarkar'• case i1 that the Editor is in charge of the whOle of the Reporting Department and in case the the Editor Chief Reporter goes on leave, it to make an appointment of the Acting Chief Repoter. It is remarkable that though Mr. Sarkar has raised this point from the start, he has not stated on oath anything in support of the practice on which he relies. Mr. Chatterjee has referred m to several statements in his evidence, but he fairly conceded that Mr. Sarkar has now-here made a categorical statement on oath that during the long period that he had been working with this Paper, practice ever was that when the Chief Reporter went on leave, the Editor appointed an Acting Chief Reporter in the leave vacancy. The failure of Mr. Sarkar to make such a categorical statement or to refer to any incident in support of his plea is not without significance. is for But apart from it, there is abundant evidence adduced before the Labour Court which shows that /jfjJ Ai.11.ta Hu111 Parik< (PJ L1i. T. Wfl1"41'1111 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 613 Mr. Sarkar's contention is not well·founded. We have already noticed that Mr. Sarkar saw Managing Director and in the letter he had pasted on the notice board on December 20, 1957, Mr. Sarkar had stated clearly that the Managing Director had told him that the only thing of which "the the Managing Director was aware was Accounts Department's insistance on authorising somebody by the Chief Reporter before he went on transaction, if any, leave through whom financial would take place." This statement clearly 1hows told Mr. Sarkar that that the Managing Director the Accounts Department wanted something writing by the Chief Reporter whenever he went on leave to show who would be acting as the Acting Chief Reporter during his absence. This statement is contained in Mr. Sarkar'• letter and embodies what he was told by the Managing Director himselr. The authorisation had, therefore, to be by the Chief Reporter and not by the Editor according to this statement. that on letter shows Then we have a letter from Mr. Chakravorty to the Director's Department written on January 3, 1958. This several occasions when the Chief Reporter had gone on leave, Mr. Chakravorty had been assigned the work In that capacity, he had of the Chief Reporter. managed the Department, allotted assignments to the other Reporters and functioned as an Acting Chief Reporter. Mr. A. K. Sarkar who Managing Director of the Ananda Bazar Patrika has stated on oath that the usual practice in the Patrika is that when the Chief Reporter or any Head of any Section remains absent, he nominates his successor during his absenc/e. There had been some controversy about the letter written by Mr. Bhattacharjee nominating Mr. Chakravorty as an Acting Chief Reporter, and it was fairly conceded , by Mr. A. K. Sarkar that this letter •was written 1'6!J A.""""'4 ••z•r l'•lrik• (P) Lli. "· W•rkmen 614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] VOL. because the Accounts Department" insisted on some writing to show the appointment of an Acting Chief Reporter. Formerly, the Chief Reporter used make verbal arrangemeuts for work during his absence. The Acting Chief Reporter has authority to take cash from the Accounts Department to pay to the Reporters whenever necessary. Therefore, the evidence of Mr. A. K. Sarkar establishes the appellant's case that Mr. Bhattacharjee was justified in making the appointment of Mr. Chakravorty as Acting Chief Reporter in his absence. The evidence given by two Re.11orters of the Ananda Bazar Patrika Mr. G.K. Ghosh and Mr. A. Chowdhary is to the same effect. Thus, apart from the fact that Mr. Sarkar has not taken the oath in support of his plea, the evidence led by the appellant clearly shows that all that Mr. Bhattcharjee did on December 16, 1957 was in accordance with the prevailing practice in the institution. It possible Indeed, it sounds common-sense that if the Chief Reporter goes on leave, should make some arrangement to enable some other reporter to act in his place during his absence and should intimate accordingly to the other heads.of departments and to the Managing Director. other institutions may have other rules, or may adopt another kind of practice, but on it is impossible to evidence, adduced in this case, s11stain Mr. Sarkar's plea that Mr. Bhattacharjee acted outside his authority and he was, therefore, justified in adopting the militant attitude which letter of December 20, was disclosed by his 1957 which was pasted by him on the notice board. It is hardly necessary to point out that even if the matter of the Mr. Sarkar had a grievance in appointment of Mr. Chakravorty, he should not have adopted the extremely militant attitude by announ- cing that he would assign to himself his duties and from Mr. Chakravory.t would take' no orders 1963 AMMa Biu"' . P•lrik• (P) Lil .. w .. u. .. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 615 right in contending Therefore, we do not think that even on the merits, Mr. Chatterjee is refusal of Mr. Basu to examine the Editor of the Paper was unjustified, much less can it be said to be perverse or malicious so as contention that the enquiry held by the said officer is unfair and baa without examining the Editor contravened the rules of n<icural iustice. sustain Mr. Chatterjee no doubt urged before us the fact that Mr. Sarkar has long and meritorious service to his credit in this institution, and he told us that he had taken part in the national movement and had adopted the career of journalism out of patri- otic and national feelings. He, therefore, appealed to us to consider whether the appellant should be asked to reinstate him in its employment. When this aspect of the matter was put to Mr. Sastri who appeared for the appellant, Mr. Sastri told us after consulting his client that having regard to the nature of the misconduct which has been held proved against Mr. Sarkar, the appellant was not inclined to take him back. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the order passed by the Labour Court is set aside. There would be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.