WORKMEN OF BALMADIES ESTATESversusMANAGEMENT BALMADIES ESTATE AND ORS.

                                 [2008] 1 S.C.R. 867


                    WORKMEN OF BALMADIES ESTATES                        A
     -'i                            v.
                 MANAGEMENT BALMADIES ESTATE AND ORS.
                         (C.A. No. 2435 of 2006)
                                 JANUARY 18, 2008
                                                                        B
                [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

                 Labour laws :
                   Domestic enquiry - Dismissal for committing theft, on
             the basis of evidence of two other workmen - Set aside by  c
             Labour Court on the ground that evidence was not properly
             appreciated by enquiry officer - High Court held that
             appreciation of evidencf! by Labour Court was perverse -
             Correctness of - Held: Correct - In domestic enquiry, guilt
             may not be established beyond reasonable doubt and the D
             proof of misconduct is sufficient - Evidence Act is not
             applicable to proceeding in domestic enquiry though
             principles of fairness would apply - The two witnesses stated
             that confession was made by delinquents in their presence
             and also in the presence of others - There was no cross- E
             examination with regard thereto - Also no complaint by
             delinquents even after charge-sheet was filed that they were
             compelled to make confession - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
             - s.11A - Evidence Act, 1872.

       _..        Two workmen were issued charge sheet on F
-I           allegation of theft. An enquiry was held in which they
             participated till the evidence of MWs.1 and 2 was recorded.
             MW.1 was cross examined by both the workmen. Neither
             of them questioned the correctness of the statement of
             MW1 that they had confessed to the police about the theft G
             in his presence. The statement of MW-1 was uncontro-
 '     ~     verted. MW-2 confirmed the statement of MW-1. After
             cross examining the witnesses, the delinquents did not
             take part in the enquiry. The enquiry officer concluded
                                           867                           H
    868      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A that the two delinquents had committed the theft.                 .,...,~

  Thereafter they were dismissed from service. The dispute
  was referred to the Labour Court, which held that there
  was no direct evidence to show that the two workmen
  had committed theft and the evidence was not properly
B appreciated   by the enquiry officer and the finding of guilt
  was based on a very slender evidence. The award was
  challenged by the employer by filing writ petition. High
  Court allowed the same holding that the Labour Court had
  failed to take note of the direct evidence more particularly
  the evidence of MWs. 1 and 2. Hence the present appeal.
c
          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
         HELD: 1. The power of the Labour Court under the
    Industrial Disputes Act has expanded vastly after the
    introduction of s.11 A into the Statute. In view of the wide
D   powers 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
E   evidence in a domestic enquiry is not required to be made
    by applying the same yardstick as a Civil Court could do
    when a /is is brought before it. The Evidence Act, 1872 is
    not applicable to the proceeding in a domestic enquiry
    though principles of fairness are to apply. It is also fairly
F   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 t:as a
G   reasonable nexus and credibility. [Paras 7-8] [871-G;
    872-8-E]
                                                                              ,
                                                                         t
        The Workmen of Mis.Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of
  India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and Ors. (1973)1 SCC
  813; Sadhu Ram v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1983) 4 SCC
H 156; Indian Overseas Bank v. 1.0.B. Staff Canteen Workers'
         WORKMEN OF BALMADIES ESTATES v.                       869
     MGMT. BALMADIES ESTATE AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]

    Union and Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 245; d.D. Jain v. Management A
    of State Bank of India and Anr. (1982) 1 sec 143 - relied on.
         2. What MWs. 1 and 2 had stated was to the effect
    that th'e 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 8
    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 held
    out. Even when they cross examined the witnesses, they C
    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· D
    brushed aside by the Labour Court in the manner done.
    [Para 10] [872-G; 873-A, B]
         CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2435
    of 2006.
                                                                      E
         From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2003 of
    the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No.409
    of 1997

         C.K. Chandrasekaran and S.R. Setia for the Appellan~.
                                                                      F
       G. Umapathy, Rakesh K. Sharma                     and     V.
    Ramasubramanian for the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
         . DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this. appeal is to G
    the order of the Madras High Court dismissing the writ appeal
j   filed by the appellant. The writ appeal was filed againstthe order
    of a learned Single Judge of the High Court in Wr!t Petition No.
    589 of 1987.                             ·           ·       ·

         2. Two workmen-Stephen and Nallusami were issued with        H
   870       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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.
G 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
H 28.3.1981. At the instance of the workmen, the dispute was
                   WORKMEN OF BALMADIES ESTATES v.                            871
               MGMT. BALMADIES.ESTATEAND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.)

               referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Coimbatore. A          A
       -'1     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            B
              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           c
              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
                                                                                     D
              that the appreciation of evidence by the Labour Court was
        _..   perverse and the Labour Court's 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          E
              Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') 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
              'Constitution').                                                       F
....     -\

                   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

..      1
              taken before the High Court.
                    7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the
              order of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. The
                                                                              G



              power of the Labour Court under the Act has expanded vastly
              after the introduction of Section 11A of the Act into the Statute.
                                                                                     H
    872       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 1 S.C.R.


A This was emphasized by this Court in The Workmen of Mis.                 t'-
  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. 0. B. Staff Canteen Workers' Union and Anr
B 12000 (4) sec 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
c 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 'Evidence Act') is not applicable to the
D 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
E 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
  Anr (1982) 1 SCC 143 it was held, almost in a similar factual
F 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
G
    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
H
           WORKMEN OF BALMADIES ESTATES v.                       873
       MGMT. BALMADIES ESTATE AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]

~"1   and/or that they had been compelled to make such a statement A
      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 s
      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.
      D.G.                                       Appeal dismissed.
                                                                       c