Holding

The High Court was not justified in interfering; the Industrial Court’s order was within its jurisdiction and the Labour Court’s power to assess legality and propriety of dismissal orders stands affirmed.

Summary

The appellants, five trade‑union workmen of Shree Synthetics Ltd., were dismissed after a domestic enquiry that found them guilty of assaulting a co‑worker. They challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court under Section 61 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, which upheld the enquiry. The Industrial Court, on revision under Sections 66 and 67, held that the enquiry was biased, the evidence was mishandled and the Labour Court’s order was therefore illegal and improper, and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court. The High Court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, quashed the Industrial Court’s order, deeming it an impermissible interference with factual findings. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court has authority to examine both legality and propriety of dismissal orders, that the Industrial Court may revise such orders when material irregularity or bias is shown, and that the High Court was not justified in overturning the Industrial Court’s remand. Consequently, the High Court’s decision was set aside and the Industrial Court’s order restored.

Issues considered

The scope of the Labour Court’s jurisdiction under Section 61 to examine the legality and propriety of a dismissal order.
Whether the Industrial Court, under Sections 66 and 67, can interfere with a Labour Court order on grounds of bias, material irregularity, or failure to exercise jurisdiction.
The meaning of ‘propriety’ and the phrase ‘as it thinks fit’ in the context of Section 66.
Whether the High Court may, under Articles 226/227, quash the Industrial Court’s order remanding the case to the Labour Court.
The correct interpretation of the standing orders provision (S.O. 12 (f)) regarding misconduct.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956
Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 227
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960s. 61, s. 66, s. 67

Subjects

Industrial RelationsLabour Court jurisdictionIndustrial Court revisionArticle 226Dismissal from serviceDomestic enquiryPropriety of orderBias in enquiryStanding orders

Judgment

772
{
•
A BABULAL NAGAR AND ORS.
v.
SHREE SYNTHETICS LTD. & ORS. •

May, 4, 1984
B
[D. A. DEsAi, o. CaINNAPPA REDDY AND A.
VARADARAJAN, JJ.J
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act 1960-S~ctions 61 and. 66-:-
c 0rder of dismissal or remo'la! front service made agalnst an employee- Jurl&-
dicri~n af Lfib~u.' Court ro t'nterfere in an app/~catlon under sect/On 6/.-Lahour
Court e1;titled to. exa·nine thf! proprlety .or irnproprlety of the order-Jurisdiction
·of Industrial Court to ·interfere with the .order of Labour Court-lnduStriaI
c~Urt can co·ne to a different co.1clusio.1 ori same set ;I facts.

Words and Phrases-r~As.it t~zifiks fit"-Legalltj and propr/ety"-Meaniq
of-Madhya Prade,h Industrial Relations Act, 1960. ,;c:ion 66 (J).

The D.ppellants were workmen emplo)'ee5 of the first· respondent com ..
pany. It·wa~ alleg~d that .they assault_ed a11otber workmari as a result of
which he sustaineJ bleeding.lnjuries.oa his h~ad. A ch1rg~sb~'!t WJS draWQ•
E up _by the m1nagemen!, was served on the· appellants,. ~hich .. was followed
by a comi)osit' domestic enquiry at the end :of which all of them were
dismissed ~rom service •.

·The appellants moved five different applications before the Labour
CoUrt _questioning the validity of the don1cstic enquiry as also the legality
and propriety of the oiders te_rmioating their services; The Labour Court
F -'findirig that the domestic_ enquiry was held according to the relevant rules,
and that there W:is evidence in S\JPP.ort of the alleged misconduct, held that
the managemant fYas justified . in. imposing_ the Penalty of dismissal from'
service.

G The appellants flied five separate revision petitions befOre the Industrial
Court- under sections 66 aad 67 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations
Act, t 960. The President of the lnciustcial Court, findillg that the entire ·
approach of-tho Inquiry Officer.-Man'lger in -arriving at the fia lings_ of' mis..
collduct in the domestic· enquiry ~ppoaied to be biase(I and qnfair,_ and that
the Conclusions neither fair nor reasonable, held that the dismissal could not
H bo sustained. All the revision petitions were therefore .allowed, and the
orders of. the Labour Court dismi~sing the applications were set aside, and
. ·'
llABULAL v. SHREB SYNTHBTics '173.

the matters ·were remanded for a fresh decision after giving the pirties due A
opr)ortunity to adduce' evidence ia respect of the alleg'ed mis..::onduct.

The respondent-company filed Writ pe_titions before the High Court
questioning tile correcJness of the-order of _the Industrial Court and a Divi-
. sioo Bench held that the Industrial Court e:x;ceeded 'its jurisdfction by inter·
fering with the findings of facts, and' as this was an erro~_apparent on the
, B
0

face of the award, quashed the decision of the Industrial Gourt.
')..
AlloWing the appeals to t'his Court;

HELD : I': (i) Times without numb", it h1s been po!nted out . that
Art. 226 is a· device t~ secur~ and advance juslice and. not otherwis.,;. [7 d7E]
c
Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Tra,sport Corporaiion, [ 1983] 4 SCC 156, referred
to.
•
(ij) Ordinarily, th~ Courts exercisi11g cxtraordia1ry · jurisdL:tion is
loathe to interfere With an order remandicig the m1tter io the a~thority.
i · directed to iovCstigate facts. [787F] · ·
D
.D. P. Maheshwarl v. Delhi Administratio1 and Ors., [1983] 4 SCC 293;
ref1.rr.ed tp.·

In the instant case, the Indu~trial. Court had made an Order of rem1nd.
The High Court was not justified in interfering with the Same ..By tllis
uncalle~ for iiJtcrference, it has merely .Prolonged the agony· of the unem-. · E
ptOyed workmen and permitted the jurisdiction of the Higll Court urider Art.
}.
226 'to be explojted by thOse who can well afford to· Wait to t'he detriment
Or those wlio can· illaff"rd to wait by drJggiag the 1.ltter from cou.rt to
court for.adjudication of peripheral is_~ues more vital to th~m. [787F-GJ
. . .. '

2. (i) DisrnisSal frolil service is an order made under th6 relevant
· st~nding orders. A relief agaiQst sU.ch an order can be obtained by making F
all application under section 6 l to the Labour Court. Agaibst the order
mad~ by the ~1hour Court un.der se'ction 0 l, a reviSion would lie ·Under
section 66 to the Industrial Court. [779H; 780C]
)

(ii) If and when ·an application under ~ection 61 is made the ·Labour
Court will have jurisdiction to decide the legality and propriety of the order G
or'dismiSsal or removal from service. When jurisdiction· is conferred- upoa
the babour Court, not oi:ily to examine tho 1e8aHty of the order as also the
proprie!y of the Order, the. Labour Court ca.a in exefcise of th~• jurisdiction
examine the propriety ot imp'ropriety of tho order. [181C]

3. (i) The main put .of Sec. 66 elearly spells out the jurisdiction of H . ·'
' the Industrial _Court to pass any order in reference to the case. brought-.
before it 'as-it thinks fit.' The expressio·1 'as it thinks fitr confers a, very
• •
114 SiJPRBMB COURT REPORTS [!9S4J 3 s.c.ll.

A wide jurisdiction enabling it to take an entirely.different view on the same
set of facts. The expression 'as it thinks fit' has the same connotation,
unless the context oth~rwise indicates 'as·b~ de"em; fit\ [7858-C]

8aja Ram Mahadev_ Paranjype and Ors. v• .Aba Maruti Mali and Ors.1
[1962] Suppl. l.SCR 739; referred to.

B
(ii) Sub.cl. (c) of tho first proviso to S!ction 66 (1) will permit tho
Industrial Court to interfere with th'e order m1.de by the LabJur Cou~t, if
the Labour Court has acted with m1terial irregularity in di5posal of the
_dispute before it~ If the finding rec0rded by th~ •Labour C'Jurt is ·such to
which no reason1ble man can arrive, the Indultrial CJurt in ~x:~rcise of 1 its
revisiorial jurisdictiOn would be entitled to inttJrfere eve11 if p1tent juri~dic_.. ·
c tional error is, not poiated out. [78Sll -F]

4. The -expression 'propriety' is variou.ly urtderstooJ; oae mJ1uin~
assigned to it-b~ing 'justice'. ArnJn.gst va&ds sbad.;:s of mJ.1.ning asiiga~d
to the expression, th3 dictionary sets out: 'fitness, appro?riate1.;:sJ; ap~HuJ.;:;
suitability etc.' as some of them. [7810-E]

D S· If the justice or the justness in relation to a Jegal procee4ing
where evidence is led is questioned and th;) authority is coaferred wHb
jurisdiction to examlne the p~op'riety of tb3 ord.;:r ·or de~isio:i thit avth:Jrity
will h:i.ve the. slm~ jurisdiction as the original- authority to·com~ to a
dffferent conclusion o:i the same set of facts-• If a11y other vieN is taken,
the expressiqn 'propriety' wou·lj lo;~ all sig1ifi;:111::e. The expre3sioJ
'I_eg1lity a1d propriety' b1s been i.lied iii!. varioui statutei wh.;:re appJliate o;
E revisiooal jurisdiction is confecred up1n a su}orior authority. o[781E-'3]

Ra'llan ~nd Rama• Lt</. v. Th? State of M>ira; and Aiir., ( 1956] S.C.R.
2S6, Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan a"dO·s., [1960] 2 S.C.R. 895, Awdesh Kumar
Bhatnagar v. The Gwalior Rayon Silk· Mfg. ( .Yeaving) Co. Ltd. and Anr.
[1972] Llb. and I_C. 84i; referred to. ~ .
F
In the insta1t cis·e, the lod03triiil C:>urt. while h'1rlng th' ievi3ion
Petitloii.s "'found that th~· p.HitioJers w~re; trad~·unioJ WJrkers and tb.1t three ,
of them w<!re offi.;e-~a~ers of th' union, and . that a m ltedal p:ece ·of •
e\ridence clearly' pJiriting tO th.;: coatrary was whcilly overlook~d by th'
Inqniry officer. Tho Indu•triai'Court also pointed out th1t report (E< D/18)
purpJr-ting to have b~en. m1de by the ass1ulted w.>rker to th3 factory
G Manlger on the day following the date of the occilrrence When P.rop_3tJy
scanned appeared to be highly suspiciou~ evidenc;:: ·hJcau3e: 'it WJS · not
dated 3.nd did not bear ·the eadorsement of the officer to wh~rn it Was
preSerited. . After referring to other infirmities in the- approach of· tho
.. Labour Court, the Industriiil Court concluded· that the entir_,
approach Or the 'M1nager in arriving at the find-ings of· roisCondu:t in bis
enquiry -'app:::ared to be biased and unfair', and 'tha coaclusioi:is o;iither fair
H nor reasonable aild any order of dismis~al blsed thereon collld not b~
sustained.' The ...InduStrial Court was, therefore perfectly ju<;tifi ~d in iOter ..
ferin$ with the order of the Labour Court. lt m>rely set aside the awar4
BABULAL v. SHREE SYNTHETICS (Desai, J.) 775

of the Lo bour cOurt and d.id not proceed to re·apprai~e the evidence but A
femitted the case to the Labour Court for fresh deciSion. It ·was thus an·
-eminently just order. The High Ccurl however; observed that tho Labour
-. Court could only interfere wi.th the decision of the inquiry officer if the
·findings atrived at were perverse. The High Court comptetely missed the -
ambit of jurisdiction of the Labour Court in that it had ·the· jurisdiction to
decide the legality and propriety of the order. Impropfiety. as converse
of propriety cannot be equated with perversity. _The· ll:igb Courl wholly, :JJ
misread the relevant provfsiorf and interfered with the dedsion of the ·
Industrial Court which was pre-eminently just and within the four corners
of its jurisdiction. [7850; 786A-G; 787A-D]
•
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1891-1895
of 1982. .C

Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the !\th September, 19i9 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Misc. Petitions Nos; 77 !o 81 of 1979.

J. Ramamurthy and Ms. R. Vaigaifor the Appellants. D
•
G.B. Pal, S.K: G,imbhir, Ashok Mahajan and Ms. Sun/ta Kripa-
lani for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
DesAT, J. Nothing appears more well settled than that the
extraordinary ju~~diction under Art. 226 conferred on the High ·
Court was a -.veapon forged to overreach injustice and secure and
· advance justice. When therefore, this extraordinary power is. used
to defeat justice and to· promote technicality not only its raison
d'etre is violated but. it becomes a handy instrument for those to F
whoni litigation cost is a luxury enjoyed at the cost of· others and
employed to- exhaust and harass an unequal opponent. Sad as it
may appear that unfortunate situation emerges in this appeal.
)
The first respondent-Shree Synthetics Ltd. ('respond~nt' for
short) appears to be a company governed by the Companies Act, G
1956. It has.set up a factory at Ujjain where it manufactures. poly- •
ester fibre. 'Appellants in eacli of these ·appeals were the wdtkmen
of the respondent. Th.ere is a trade union of the workmen e)llployed ,
by the respondent of which at the relevant time three· out of the
five appellants in this group of_appeals'wer~ office bearers. Babula!
H
Nagar was the President of the Union : Babula! Jaiswalwas the
General Secretary and Ramesh C~andra was the Secretary.
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984J 3 S.C.R.
;1
A According to the respondents on June 3, 1975 around 11.10
P. M one Verma a workman of the respondent on the shift being.
over· Wdnt,out. of the compound gate-and took his seat in a tempo
when Babula! Nagar a_Tld Babula! Jaisw'al along with three other.
appellants approached him and asked Verm1 to alight from the
B tempo as they wanted to talk to him .. On Venm's disinclination to
come ou~ of the vehicle, it was all>ged that Babula! Nagar and

-~
Babula! Jaiswal pulled Verma out of the vehicle and all the appel-
lants. assaultod him ·with fists and kicks and felled him down as a
result of which Verma sustained .bleeding injuries on his head. On
hearing the commotion, ·sta!T of the security department. intervened.
c and rescued him. ·

Setting out these allegations a charge-sheet was drawn-up .and
served on the five appellants followed by a composite cjomestic
enquiry at the end of which all of them were dismi&sed frpm service.

D
The ·appellants moved five different .applications before th.e
Labour Co trt questioning the validity of the domestic efiquiry held
againat them as also tlie]egality and propriety of the orders terminat-
ing their services. The Labour Court .was of -the opinion that the
domestic enquiry was held according to the relevant ru \es and as
there was evidence in support of the alleged m!sconduct the manage,, •
E
mentwas justified in imposin'g the penalty of dismissal from service

,
and accordingly all the five applications· were dismissed.

The appellants filed five separate revision petitions before the
Industrial Court under Secs, 66 and 67 of the Madhya Pradesh
F Industrial Relations Act, J 950.('Act' for short). All the five revi-
sion petitions were he1rd by the President of the Industrial Court
at Indore who. was q{ the opinion that the entire approach of the
inquiry officer-Manager-in arriving·at the findings of misconduct
·in his enquiry. appear to be biased aµd unfair and that the conclusions
are neither fair nor reasonable and as such the dismissal cannot be
sustained on the basis thereof. Accordingly he, by, a common judg-
• ment dated Febrnary 26, 1979, allowed all the revision petitions and
set '!lside the orders of the Labour Court dismissing the applications
and n;manded the matters.to the Labour Court for a fresh. decision
after giving both the parties due opportunity to adduce evidence in
respect of the alleged misconduct. ·
ll
The respondent moved five separate misc, petitions in.the Hi~h
'r . DABULAC v. SHREE SYNTHETICS (Desai, J.)

Court of Madhya Pradesh," Jabalpur at Indore under Arts. 226 and A
• 227 of the Constitution questioning the correctness of the decision
of the Industrial Court. A Division Bench of the High Court he .Id
that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering 'with
the findings of facts and this was in error apparent on the face of
the award. Accordingly, it issued a writ of certiorari and quashe_d
the decision of the Industrial Court. Hence these five civil appeals B

- by special leave. ·

Conditions of service in respect of the cniployees employed by
the respondent are governed by the Certified Standing Orders. s. ·o.
12 (f) which was relied upon by the· respondent for imputing mis- ' r.
· conduct to the appellants reads as·under : · C

"12. Disciplinary action for !llisconduct (1) The folio-
. wing ~ts or omissions on tM ·part of an employee shall
amount to a major misconduct :
D
(a) to (el xx xx xx

xx xx xxxx xx xx
(f) drunkenness, riotous or disorderly behaviour, during
I. working hours at the undertaking or condut:t endangering the E
life or ·safety of any person, intimidation, physical duress, or
any act subversive of dmcipline." -
•
The allegation in the charge-sheet on the basis of which the
domestic enquiry wa~ held reads as under : '
.. .
• ...Babula! was on duty on 3.6.1975 in the B Shift from
F

3 p. m. to 11 p. m. At about 8.15 p.m. when Shri Satya-
Prakash Verma, a Telephone Operator and Shri K. C. Bagdi, ·
Shift-time keeper were coming out ofthe canteen after taking
their meals, Babula] Nagar and Babula\ Jaiswalwere sitting in G
the lavyn in front of the canteen. At that time, Babula! Jai'swal
asked Babula! Nagar to explain to Verma the whole position
in Hindi. There upo11 Babula! J\'agar went to Bagdi and Verma
and uttered the following meanjngful words : _:_"You are just '
a child now. You do not understand anything; if you inter-
fere in this, you will have to pay a heavy price, (true trans-
l;ltion)" Verma ~ave no reply and both Veq:na and Ba¥di ·
•
'
778 SUPREME C\tURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R
• • .. -(
A iv.ent into the office. Thereafter, at 9.15 p. m. A. K. Awdsthi
and Rajendra Jain went to the canteen to iake their meals. At
that time both the petitioners namely, Babula! Nagar and •
Babula! Jaiswal we.re. present there. Babula! Nagar took oµt
a· false token and . challenged that it may be checked b) any
security officiaL Rajendra Jain thereupon said that he was
B not in his uniform. At. that time, Babula! Jaiswal uttered
·some filthy words and thereafter both Babula! Nagar and
Babula! Jaiswal left the cantoen uttering filthy abuses.

At 9.30 p. m. Babula! Nagar spoke to Verma on tele-
phone that he should. come. out of the Plant as he wanted to
e talk to him. Verma, therefore, come ont in the lawn from his
office where both B~bulal Nagar and Babula! Jai~wal were pre-
sent. At that time, Babula! Jaiswal said to Verma as under :-
•
"You. have put end to our movement. Jn future things ·
D -will not be ri,gllt, if you interfere with us, and threatened,
, that we shall see at 11'0 clock outside the gate." (true
traµslation)

After the shift was over at about 11.10 pm. when
Verma went ·outof the gate and too.k his seat _in the tempo
E Babula! Nagar and Babula!. Jaiswal along with the otl!er
three petitioners wtnt to him and asked Verma to come cut
of the tempo as they Mnted to talk to him .. Verma replied
that they could talk to him there.' Thereupon both Babula!
Nagar and Babula! Jaiswal pulled Verma out of fhe tempo
and all the petitioners as•aulted Verma with fists and kicks
F and felled him dJwn as a result of which he sustained a.
bleeding injury on his head."On hearing the cries of Verma
members. of the security Department rescued him an~ took
him inside the gate." · \
'
. ' ......-...._

Apart from anything else, a very serious question touching
G
upon the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Authority to hold an
enquirf on the ,allegation that S. 0. 12 (!) (f) was violated would
arise before the Labour Court more particularly in view of the
recent decision of this Court in M/s Glaxo Lcboratorles (I) Ltd. v.
Presiding Office;, Labour Court, Meerut & Ors. \ 1) wherein S. 0. 22
IL 11pplicable to. Glaxo l,aboratori_!!S (I) Lt<;!. wh:vb. is in pari materia
(O [1984) 1 src 1,
•
llABULAL \', ~H~EE SYNT!IETlCS (Desai, J.) 779
"r . with the S. 0. 12 (!) (f) came up for construction nt' this Court. A
After an exhaustive rcvie\.v of the various di.;cisions on the subject,
this Court after repelling the construction canvassed on behalf of
the appellant in thaf'c<1se th1t such acts as drunkenness, riotous or
disorderly behaviour are per se misconduct unconnected with time
place content and wherever committed would constitute misconduct,
B
held that the various acts of misconduct therein set out would be
misicondnct for the purpose of the relevant standing orders, if commit
'• ted within the premises of the establishment or in the vicinity
thereof. The Court further held that what constitutes 'establish-
ment' or 'its vicmity' wouldde pend-upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. But we shall not flr.ally pronounce on this point c
as the Industrial Court had remanded the matter to the Labour
Court which has jurisdiction to examine this cesc and we are inclined
to uphold that order.

Therefore, the narrow question which we propose to examine
in this case is whether the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary D
jurisdiction under Art,. 226 and 227 should have by giving undue
importance to a technical objection of jurhdiction which on proper
fathoming, it itself lacked should have set a.ide a well-con,idered
reasoned judgment of the President of the Industrial Court which
again had merely remanded the matter thus prolonging to some
extent the agony of the unemployed workers commencing from E
1975,

Let us at the commencement acquaint ourselves with the scope
and ambit of the power of the Labour Court as well as.the Industrial
Court under the Act which would provi:ie a correct perspcclive to
F
determine whether the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227 was at all justified in inter-
fering with the order made by the Industrial Court or that legalese
prevailed over substantial social justice.

Sec. 61 prescribes the powers of the Labour Court which inter G
alia includes the power-(A) to decide-(a) disputes regarding which
application has been m1dc to it under sub-section (3) of section 31
of the Act. Sec. 3 l enables an employee to make an application
for relief against an ord·er of an employer made under any of the
standing orders. D:smissal from service is an order made under
the relevant standing orders. A relief against such order can be H
obtained by making an application under Sec. 61. Entry l in
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 3 S C R.

A Schedule II of the Act prior to the amendment of l "81 provided
that the Labour Court may examine :

"the propriety or legality of an order passed or action
taken by an employer acting or purporting to act under the
Standing Orders."
B
Tile only feature worth-noticing is that the scope ambit and •'
contours of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in such an appli·
cation would have to be determined within the parameters or the
expression 'the propriety or legality of an order.' Against an order
made by the Labour Court under Sec. 61, a revision would lie under
Sec. 66 to the Industrial Court. Sec. 66 has been wholly recast in
I 98 l. However at the relevant time, Sec. 66 read as under :

"66; Revision. (!) The Industrial Court may, on the
application by any party to a case which has been finally.
decided by a Labour Court other than a case decided under
D
paragraph (D) of sub· section (l) of section 61, call for and
examine the record of such case and may pas• order in
reference thereto as it thinks fit :

Provided that the Industrial Court shall not vary or
E reverse any order of the Labour Court under this section
unless-

(i) it is satisfied that the Labour Court has-

(a) exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or
F

(b) failed to exercise a jucisd1ctbn so vested; or

(c) acted in exercise or its jurisdiction illegally or with
material irregularity;
G
(ii) not~e has been served on tho part_ies to the case and
opportunity given to them for bemg heard.

(2) No application under sub-section (I) shall lie to the
Industrial Court unless it is made within thirty days
of the date on which the case has been finally decided
by:the Labo11r Court;
DABULi\L ,._ SllREE Si'NT!llTlCS (Desai, J.) 781
'r .
Provided that in computing the p(·riod of thirty days the A
period requisite for obtaining a copy of the order
shall be excluded." ..

Having noticed the relevant provisions, it is now necessary to
ascertain with precision the jurisdiction of the labour Court under
B
Sec. 61. The scheme of the standing orders applicable to jhe
•' respondont-Company would show that a penalty of dismissal or
removal from service can be imposed after hold:ng a domestic
enquiry. According to the relevant provis:ons in the standing
orders,· such an order when made would be opeu to challenge by a
substantive application under Sec. 66 (I) and in st1clr an application,
if and when made, the Labour Court will have jurisdictinn to decide
c
the legality and the propriety of the order. When jurisdiction is
conferred upon the Labour Court, not onl:)'. to examine the legality
of the order as also the propriety of the order, the Labour Court
can in exercise of the jurisdiction examine the propriety or 1mpro·
priety of the order. The expression 'propriety' is variously under- D
stood, one meaning assigned to it being 'justice' in Legal Thesaurus
by Burton at page 902. Amongst various shades of meaning
a&signed to the expression, the Oxford EPglish Dictionnry, Vol. VIII
page 1484 sets out 'fitness; approprfateness; apt'tude; suitability;
appropriateness to the circumstances or conditions, conformity \vith
requirement; rule or principle, rightness, correctness, justness etc.' E
If therefore, the justice or the justness in relation to a legal proceed-
• .
> ing where evidence is led is questioned and the authority is cunferred
with jur:sdiction to examine the propriety of the order or decision
that authority will have the same jurisdiction as the orig'nal authority
to come to a different conclusion on the same set of facts. If uny
oth~r vic\v is taken the cxpress:on 'propriety' would Jo'."c all s~gnift F
•1
cance. The expression 'legality and propr'ety' hm bc:e;i med in
various statutes where appellate or revisional jurisdiction is conferred
upon a superior authority. Jn Raman & Ranum Ltd. v The State of
1 Madras & Anr\1 ) while examining the ambit of the jurisdiction of the
-(
State Government under Sec. 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
G
as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Madras) Amendment Act, 1948
to interfere with the orders of subordinate Regional 1 ransport
Authority on the ground of propriety, this Court observed as under :

"The word "propriety" has nowhere been defined in
the Act and is capable of a variety of meanings. fn the
H
OlH19l6) SCR 256.
782 SUPREME COURT R~PORTS (1984] 3 S C.R.
.../
A Oxford English Dictwnary (Vol. VIII), it has been stated to
mean "fitne>'S; appropriateness; aptitude; suitability; appro-
priateness to the circumstances or condtions; conformity
•
with requirement, rule or principle; rightness, correctness,
justness, accuracy". If the State Govenment was of the
opinion .that·respondent No. I had better facllities for ope-
B ration than the appellant and their servic! to the public
would be more beneficial, 1t could not be said that the ,.
State Government was in error in thinking that the order •
of the Board confirming the order of the Regional Trans-
port Authority was improper."
.c
In Moti Rom v. Suraj Bhan & Ors. 11) while exammmg the
scope and ambit of junsdiction of the High Court under Sec. 15
(5) of the East Punjab Urban R~nt Restriction Act, 1949, this
Court observed as under :

"Under Sec. 15 (5) the High Court has jurisdiction to
DJ examine the legality or propriety of the order under revision
and that would clearly justify the examination of the pro-
priety or legality of the finding made by the 1uthorities in
the present case about the requirement of the landlord under
s. 13 (3) (a) (iii) ...
E
After referring to these two decisions, in Ching Chong Sine v.
Puttay Gowd~r,(') Alagiriswami, J. held that the court exercising . ~.
revisional jurisdiction to decide the legality or propriety of an order
has the power to come to a conclusion different from that arrived by
the subordinate court on the same set of circumstances. In Ahmeda-
. Ii bad Sarangpur Mills Company Ltd. v. Industrial Court, Ahmedabad
and Anr.(3) a Div'sion Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that
the expression 'legality and propriety' in S. 78(1J of the Bombay
Industrial Relations Act does not limit the jurisdiction of the labour
court to a revisional jurisdiction. And that any order made by the
employer undor the standing order is subject to the jurisdiction
G conferred on the labour court under Sec. 78, which can scrutinise the
legality and propriety of the order. This jur;sdiction was described
by the court as original jurisdiction meaning thereby that the labour

(1) [1960] 2 SCR 896.
H (2) AIR 1968 Madras 152.
(3) [1965] 1 LLJ;155,
llABULAL ·v. SHREE SYNTHETICS (Desai, J.) 783

court c1n come to an entirely differer.! conclusion on the same set of A
facts. This vi·ow was followed by another Division Bench of the
Gujarat High Court in Manekchown and Ahmedabad Manufacturing
Company Ltd v. Industrial Court and another.(1 ) In Vithoba Maruti
Chavan v. S. Tuki Bilgrami, Member Industrial Court, Bombay and
Anr.,(2) a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the
power to decide 'propriety' and legality of the order made under B
standing order doos not confer a mere revisional jurisdiction but a
wider jurisdiction wh'ch will enable the ·Labour Court to set aside
the order of the employer depending upon the facts and circumstances
of tile case.

Mr. Pai on the other hand C:rew our attention to Vaidyanath v.
c
The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.(3)
While observing that a Labour Court c1nnot exercise the power of
an appellate court and cannot rea;1~:aise the evidence, yet both the
Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal can interfere with the
findings of fact of the inquiry otlicer of the employer only where D
they are not supported by any legal evidenco or are so perwrse that
no reasonable p:::rson would arriv~ at such findings on the materials
placed before him. It was held that the power of the Labour Court
or the Industrial Court under the Act are not wider than those of
Industrial Tribunal under the Indu5trial Disputes Act, 1947 before
the introduction of Sec. ll·A in the latter Act. In Kymore Cement E
,> Mazdoor Congress v. Industrial Court, Indore and Ors.,(') it was held
that the expression 'illegally or with material irregularity' in sub-cl.
(c) of the first provho of Sec. 66(1) do not cover either errors of
facts or law and they do not refer to the decisi0n arrived at but to
the manner in which it is reached. Approaching the matter from this
angle, the High Court set aside the decision of the Industrial F
Court in rcvhion against the order of the Labour Court on the
ground that the Industrial Court had interfered with a finding of fact
which even if erroneous would not confer jurisdiction on the
Industrial Court to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Mr. Pdi emphasised that the view of M.P. High Court on the
G
interpretation of Sec. 61 should prevail over the view of Gujarat
High Court interpreting a different statute. This does not carry
conviction because Sec. 61 of the Act is iJi pari materia with Sec. 78

(l) (1967) I LLJ 463.
(2) AIR 1965 Bombay 81.
H
(3) 1974 Lab. & I.C. 1447.
(4) (1966) 1 LLJ 117,
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984) 3 S.C.R. {

A of the Gujarat Act. However, it would be profitable to refer to the
decision of this Court in iwdesh Kumar Bhatnagar v. The Gwalior
Rayon Silk Mfg. (Weaving) Co. Ltd. and Anr.(1 ) in which this Court
while examining the scope of the jurisdiction conferred by Sec. 66
on the Industrial Court under the Act held that if the Labour Court
has committed serious mistakes, the Industrial Court has jurisdictio!l
B to interfere with the same and upheld the decision of the Industrial
Court which had interfered with the·find ings of facts recorded by the.
Labour Court A full B·~nch of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Nandkumar Singh v. The State Industrial Court, Indore and Ors(.2)
held that perverse or arbitrary findings based on no material fall
within foe ambit of the phrase "exercise of jurisdiction illegally or
c with rnaterbl irtegularity" justifying interference in revision. It is
not necessary to farther multiply the authoriti~s. Therefore, it
appears.well-established that the Labour Court having jurisdiction to
examine the legality and propriety of the order made by the
employer under the standing order will have jurisdiction to examine
D the propriety of the orJ.er which will permit it to come to a con·
c!usion dilforent from the one to which the employer arrived at.
Such being the amplitude of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court if
upon a wrong view of ambit of its jurisdiction Labour Court
approaches the matter as if it exercises narrow revisional jurisJiction,
the ludustrial Courr in rJvision cin interfere on the ground of
E failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Labour Court or material
irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction.

Sec. 66(1) of the Act provides that the Industrial Court omit··
ting the portion nm relevant for the present purpose, may call for
F and examine the record of such case and pass order in reference
thereto as it tbinks fit. If the Industrial Court has the jurisdiction to
pass any order in reference to a case called for by it thinks fit,
obviously it c:in come to a conclusion on the same set of facts
different from the one to which the Labour Court had arrived. It
was however urged that this jurisdiction of wide amplitude has been
G
cut down by the· proviso which provides that the Industrial Court
shall not very or reverse any order of the Labour Court under Sec.
66(\) unle'5-(i) 1t is s_atisfied that the Labour Court has-(a) exer-
cised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) failed to exercise a

H (I) (1972) Lab. & I.C. 842.

(2) (1977) Lcb. & l.C'. i279.
BABULAL v. SHREE SYNTHETICS (Desai,.J) . 78~

jurhdiction so vested; or (c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally or with mitcrial irregularity. It was urged that these clauses
so circumscribe and cut down the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court
under Sec. 66 as to be on par with Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The maill part of Sec. 61 clearly spells out the jurisdic-
tion of the Industrial Court to pass any order in reference to the
case brought before it as it thinks fit. The expression 'as it thinks
fit' confers a very .wide jurisdiction enabling it to take an entirely
different view on the same set of facts. The expression 'as it thinks
fit' confers a very wide jurisdiction enabling it to take an entirely
different view on the same set of facts. The expression 'as it thinks
fit' has the same connotation, unless context otherwise indicates, 'as .
he deems fit' and the btter expression was interpreted by this Court
in Raja Ram Mahadev Paranjype & Ors. v. Aha Maruti Mali &
Ors.(1) to mean to make an order in terms of the statute, an order
which would give effect to a right w'.iich the Act has elsewhere con-
ferred. Is this jurisdiction so circumscribed as to bring it on par
•
with Sec. ll5 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Proviso does cut
down the ambit of the main provision but it cannot be interprted to
denude the main provision of any efficacy and reduce it to a paper
proviSion. Both mus.t be so interpreted as to permit interference
which if not undertaken there would be miscarriage of justice.
Sub-cl. (c) of the first proviso to Sec. 66(1) will permit the Industrial
Couit to interfere with the order made by the Labour Court, if the
Labour Court has acted with material irregularity in disposal of the •
dispute before it. If the finding recorded by the Labour court is
such to which no reasomble man can arrive, obviously, the Industrial
Com t in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would be entitled to
interfere with the same even if patent jurisdictional error is not
pointed out.

Reverting to the facts of this case, the Industrial Court while
) hearing the revision petitions found that the petitioners were trade
union workers and the three of them were the office-bearers of the
Union. It was further found that a material piece of evidence
clearly pointing to the contrary was wholly overlooked by the
inquiry officer. It extracted the relevant portion of the evidence of
witness Balchand and pointed out in no uncertain terms that if the
inquiry officer had taken note of the relevant piece of evidence and

(1) [1962] Suppl. I SCR 739.
•
'786 • SUPREME COURT AEPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R. j

A had applied its mind to it and dealt with it in the report, it would
have been difficult to hold the charge proved. The non-application
of mind of the inquiry officer was pointed out by referring to that
part of the final order which manifestly overlooked the material
piece of evidence which would go to the root of the matter. The
Industrial Court observed that the inquiry officer quitely skipped
B over very ma'.erial portion of the evidence of Balchand which went
a long way to falsify the charges relating to the incidents which
preceded the actual assault on Verma. 'The Industrial Court then
pointed out that report \Ex. D/18) purporting to have been made by
victim Verma to the factory Manager on the day following the date
of the occurrence when properly scanned appears to be a highly
c suspicious evidence because: 'it is not dated and does not bear the
endorsement of the officer to whom it was presented.' This is
permissible bocause the revisional jurisdiction enables the authority
to point something which is no evidence legally speaking or in the
eye of law. It was pointed out that Verma did not identify the
report. The Industrial Court concluded that the possibility of this
-
D report being intwduced at a later stage to strengthen the case against
the five appellants cannot be rukd-out. After referring to other
infirmities in the approach of the Labour Court, the Industrial Court
concluded that the entire approach of the Manager in arriving at the
findings of mISconduct in bis inquiry 'appear to be biased and
• unfair', and 'the conclnsions are neither fair nor reasonable and any
E .order of dismissal based thereon cannot be sustained.' Can it ever
be said that in reaching this conclusion, the Industrial Court excee-
ded its revisional jurisdiction '/ The whole approach .of the Labour
Co11rt dealing with tile report of the inquiry as also th~ inquiry
itself clearly disclosed material irregularity and thereby the Labour
Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested Ill it namely, to examine
F the propriety of the order wilith it failed to do. The Industrial
Court, in our opinion, was perfectly justified in interfering with the
order of the Labour Court. Even then the approach of the Industrial
Court, being conscious of the severe constraints on its jurisdiction
was of digmlied restraint and just. It merely set aside the award of
G the Labour Court and did not proceed to reappraise evidence but
remitted the case to the Labour Court for a fresh decision. ·It was
thus an eminently just order.

Is it such an order which the High Court could have interfered
H with in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction 1 Ihe High Court
' - UABULAL v. Sl!REE SYNTl!ETICS (Desai, J.) 787

observed that the Labour Court can only interfere with the decision A
of the inquiry officer, if the findings arrived at by him were p_erverse.
The High Court completely missed the ambit of jurisdiction of the
Labour Court in that it had the jurisdiction to decide the legality
and propriety of the ord;r. Improprioty as converse of propriety
cannot be equated with pervorsity as understood by the High Court.
B
The High C~urt further observed that if 'the finding of ihe
misconduct is a plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence
adduced at the enquiry, the labour tribunals have no jurisdiction to
sit in judgment over the decision of the employer, as an appellate
body. This betrays complete fack of understanding of the jurisdic-
tion of th' Labour Court in re>pect of an order made under the c
standing order as set out m Schedule II item I to the Act which
enables the Labour Court to examine the legality and propriety of
the order. The High Court therefore, wholly misread the relevant
provision and interfered with the decision of the Industrhl Court
which was pre-eminently just and within the four corners of its
jurisdiction. What left us guessing was that according to the High D
Court the Industrial Court had narrow jurisdiction while dealing
with the order of the Labour Court, yet the High Court in exercise
of its extraordinary jurisdiction interfered with the decision of the
Industrial Tribunal. Times "ithout number, it has been pointed out
that Art. 226 is a device to secure and advance justice and not
otherwise. (Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport Corporation)(l) E

Ordinarily, the courts exerc1smg extraordinary jurisdiction is
loathe to interfere with an order remanding the matter to the
authority directed to investigcite facts. The Industrial Court had
made an order of remand. The High Court was not justified in F
interfering with the same. By this uncalled for interference, it has
merely prolonged the agony of the unemployed workmen and
permitted the jurisdiction of the High Court under Act. 226 to be
exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the deteriment of
those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from court to
court for adjudication of peripheral issues avoiding decision on G
issues more vital to them. (D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration
and Ors.\ 2 )

(Il [1983] 4 sec 156.
(2) [1983] 4 sec l93. H
?88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS IJ984] 3 s.c.R.
. {.,,.
A Accordingly these appeals succeed and are allowed and. the
decision of the High Court is set aside and the one of the Industrial
Court is restored with costs.

As the matter is an old one, the Labour Court is directed to
give top priority to this matter and dispose this of as early as
B possible and not later than six months from today.

N.V.K. Appeals allowed.'<