# Kam ala nvJi v. Takhatmal S"hba Rao }

- **Citation:** [1964] 2 S.C.R. 165
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-04-03
- **Bench:** P. B. Ga.Jendragadkar, M. Hidayatulj, J.C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kam-ala-nvji-v-takhatmal-s-hba-rao-2833
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

lnd11strla!
T>iBpufe-Requireme-nts of vrdifl inquiry-
/lri'.ncip/f'.~ nf natuta! jtt~lice-Practice, of Suprerne ('nurt nnt
In Pnfr r irifu fridenre to .find facts for itsefj-(1ase of no f.vid1,nrr.
In Jan:,ary, I ()j6, there was an incident in which a group
of workrnen assaulted the Manager and tv,;o Assistant Managers
of the appellant company.
All the three offi,·ers were wounded. Sornr: w• 1rk1nr.n IA'< re suspended, :ind cbargt'·Sheets wen>:
served on them,
c!'iar~ii,g them with participation in the riot.
After an inquiry the VIOrkmen wert" disrnissed. 'rhe inquiry
was hr.ld liy the M;1nager and one of the 1\ssistant Managers.
During the inquiry, no witness was
~xarnine<l and no stat(' ..
ment marle by any witnt ss was tendered in evidence.
(IJ (1957] S. C.R. 770.
1963
Kam ala nvJi
v.
Takhatmal
S"hba Rao }.
1963
I .bruarY 22,
1913
M1en1l1.r Te.1. Est•t1
v.
Its WBrkmen
llidayatul/ah J.
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
The dispute was first referred to the Labour Court and
then to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
The Tribunal
set aside the inquiry held by the appellant company and asked
the company to prove the allegations against each workman
d' nova before it. The company examined five witnesses.
The
Tribunal held that orders for dismissal of 15 workmen were
justified but it ordered the remaining workmen to be reinstated.
The company came to this Court hy special leave.
n,zd, that the view of the Tribunal was correct that the
inquiry made by the company was not in accordance with the
principles of n•tural justice. The inquiry consisted of putting
questions to each workman in turn.
~o witness \Vas examined
in support of the charge before the workman was questioned.
It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to
answer a charge must not only know the accusation Lut also the
testifuony by which the accusation ·is supported. He must be
given a clear chance to hear the evidence in support of the
charge and to put such relevant questions by way of c10'5·examination as he desires.
He must also be given a chan'::e to
rebut the evidence led against him.
As regards two workmen, this Court held that the Tribun:il was justified in not acceptiug the findings which p1 oceeded
almost on no evidence.
As regards one workman, this Court
held that as the Tribunal had the opportunity of hearing and
seeing the two Assistant Managers, this Court would be slow to
reach a conclusion different from that of the Tribunal. Moreover, in such cases, it is not the practice of this Court to enter
into evidence with a view to finding facts for itself.
CrvrL APPELLATl<>]URISDIOTION: Civil Appeal
No. 359 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
April 3, 1961 of the t:leventh Industrial Tribunal,
West Bengal, in Case No. VIII-303 of 1 !Jt>O.
B. Sen, S. G. JYJazumdar, D. N.
Mulcheijee
for B. N. Ghosh, for the appellant .
. .Janardhrin 8hnrmn, for the respondents.
Hl63. February 22.
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
HrnA YATULLAH J.--·By this appeal filed with
the special leave of this Court, by the Meenglas Te<1
,
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
167
-
Estate against its Workmen, the Company seeks to
challenge an award dated April 3, 1961, pronounced
by the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
The order of reference was made by the Government
of West Bengal as far back as October 29, 1957, in
respect of the di~missal of 44 workmen. The issue
which was referred was as follows :-
"Whether the dismissal of the workmen mentioned in the attached list is justified ? What
relief by way of reinstatement and/or compensation are they entitled to?"
From November 5, 1957, to August 17, 1960,
this referJnce remained
pending before the First
Labour Court. It was then
transferred to the
Seventh Industrial Tribunal and the letter made the
impugned award on April 3, 1961.
By the time the
award was made two of the workmen (Nos. 12 and
37) had died and
four
had been re-emplo) ed
(Nos. 31, 33, 34 and ,35).
One of the workmen
(No

## Text

2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
165
strictly cumtrued. This Court again in 1'he State of
Uttar Pmde.sh v. Maham.med 8ayeed (1), applied the
strict rule of comtruction of a surety bond in that
case.
In the present case a strict construction
of
the bond leads to the only conclusion
that a
demand of the Court on the judgment· debtor and a
default made by him were necessary conditions for
the enforcement of the bond against the appellant.
In the result, we set aside the order of the High
Court and dismiss
the application for execution
filed by the first
n~spondent against the appellant.
But we do not think that this is fit case for awarding costs to the appellant. She has failed to raise
this objection specifically in her objections or to
place before the
learned District Judge the present
con tent ion.
In the circumstances we direct each
party to bear his or her own costs throughout.
MEE:'olGL\S TEA ESTATE
v.
ITS WORKMEN
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATULJ,AH
and J.C. SHAH JJ.)
lnd11strla!
T>iBpufe-Requireme-nts of vrdifl inquiry-
/lri'.ncip/f'.~ nf natuta! jtt~lice-Practice, of Suprerne ('nurt nnt
In Pnfr r irifu fridenre to .find facts for itsefj-(1ase of no f.vid1,nrr.
In Jan:,ary, I ()j6, there was an incident in which a group
of workrnen assaulted the Manager and tv,;o Assistant Managers
of the appellant company.
All the three offi,·ers were wounded. Sornr: w• 1rk1nr.n IA'< re suspended, :ind cbargt'·Sheets wen>:
served on them,
c!'iar~ii,g them with participation in the riot.
After an inquiry the VIOrkmen wert" disrnissed. 'rhe inquiry
was hr.ld liy the M;1nager and one of the 1\ssistant Managers.
During the inquiry, no witness was
~xarnine<l and no stat(' ..
ment marle by any witnt ss was tendered in evidence.
(IJ (1957] S. C.R. 770.
1963
Kam ala nvJi
v.
Takhatmal
S"hba Rao }.
1963
I .bruarY 22,
1913
M1en1l1.r Te.1. Est•t1
v.
Its WBrkmen
llidayatul/ah J.
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
The dispute was first referred to the Labour Court and
then to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
The Tribunal
set aside the inquiry held by the appellant company and asked
the company to prove the allegations against each workman
d' nova before it. The company examined five witnesses.
The
Tribunal held that orders for dismissal of 15 workmen were
justified but it ordered the remaining workmen to be reinstated.
The company came to this Court hy special leave.
n,zd, that the view of the Tribunal was correct that the
inquiry made by the company was not in accordance with the
principles of n•tural justice. The inquiry consisted of putting
questions to each workman in turn.
~o witness \Vas examined
in support of the charge before the workman was questioned.
It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to
answer a charge must not only know the accusation Lut also the
testifuony by which the accusation ·is supported. He must be
given a clear chance to hear the evidence in support of the
charge and to put such relevant questions by way of c10'5·examination as he desires.
He must also be given a chan'::e to
rebut the evidence led against him.
As regards two workmen, this Court held that the Tribun:il was justified in not acceptiug the findings which p1 oceeded
almost on no evidence.
As regards one workman, this Court
held that as the Tribunal had the opportunity of hearing and
seeing the two Assistant Managers, this Court would be slow to
reach a conclusion different from that of the Tribunal. Moreover, in such cases, it is not the practice of this Court to enter
into evidence with a view to finding facts for itself.
CrvrL APPELLATl<>]URISDIOTION: Civil Appeal
No. 359 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
April 3, 1961 of the t:leventh Industrial Tribunal,
West Bengal, in Case No. VIII-303 of 1 !Jt>O.
B. Sen, S. G. JYJazumdar, D. N.
Mulcheijee
for B. N. Ghosh, for the appellant .
. .Janardhrin 8hnrmn, for the respondents.
Hl63. February 22.
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
HrnA YATULLAH J.--·By this appeal filed with
the special leave of this Court, by the Meenglas Te<1
,
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
167
-
Estate against its Workmen, the Company seeks to
challenge an award dated April 3, 1961, pronounced
by the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
The order of reference was made by the Government
of West Bengal as far back as October 29, 1957, in
respect of the di~missal of 44 workmen. The issue
which was referred was as follows :-
"Whether the dismissal of the workmen mentioned in the attached list is justified ? What
relief by way of reinstatement and/or compensation are they entitled to?"
From November 5, 1957, to August 17, 1960,
this referJnce remained
pending before the First
Labour Court. It was then
transferred to the
Seventh Industrial Tribunal and the letter made the
impugned award on April 3, 1961.
By the time the
award was made two of the workmen (Nos. 12 and
37) had died and
four
had been re-emplo) ed
(Nos. 31, 33, 34 and ,35).
One of the workmen
(No. 22)
was not
found
to be a
workman
at all. The Tribunal held that the orders of dismissal of fourteen workmen were justified though
retrospective effect could not be given to the orders.
The Company was ordered to re-instate the .remaining workmen and to pay them compensation in some
cases (but not all) amounting to three months' wages.
In the present appeal the Company seeks to challenge
the award regarding 13 of those workmen who have
been ordered to be reinstated. Of these workmen
the cases of three fall to be considered separately
and those of the remaining ten can be considered
together.
We shall now give the facts from which
the reference arose.
The appellant Meenglas Tea Estate in Jalpaiguri District of West Bengal is owned by Duncan
Brothers Ltd. The workers belong to the Zilla
Chabagan Workers'
Union,
Malbazar,
D~trict
1963
Meenglas Tei Fslat1
v.
Its Workmen
Hidayatul/ah J,
/963
M1tntlos Tta E1l''lt
v.
Its WerA:mtn
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL .
.Jalpaiguri. On January 18, l!J;i6, there was an
ugly incident in which a group of workmen assaulted
the Manager, Mr . .\1arshall and his two Assistant
Managers Mr.
Nichols and .\fr. Dhawan.
This
happeued one morning in a section of the tea gardens
where about two hundred workmen had surrounded
.\Ir. Nichols and were making a violent demonstration. First .\Ir. Dhawan and soon after .\1r. Marshall
arrived on the scene and the workmen surrounded
them also. In the assault that followed these three
officers were wounded-Mr. Marshall seriously.
A
criminal case was started ag::inst some of the rioters
hut we are not concerned with
it.
The Company
also started proceedings against some workmen.
It first issued a notice of suspension which was to
take effect from February (i,
I !J56, and then served
charge-sheets on a large number of workmen charging them with participation in the riot.
The Workmen replied denying their complicity. The Company
then held enquiries and 01<lered the dismissal of a
number of workmen with effect from January IS,
J fl56.
A sample order of
di~missal is exhibited as
· anncxurc F in the case.
In the enquiry before the
Tribunal the Union admitted the incident though
it said that it was caused by provocation on the
part of the Management. The Cnion, however,
denied that any of the workmen who were charged
was concerned in the affray pointing out that
none of these workmen was prosecuted by the police.
The enquiry was held by .\fr. .\farshall and !\fr.
Nichols and the record of the proceedings is marked
Exhibits l i
and
18
series.
That
record was
produced before us by the appcllan• for our perusal.
It was admitted before us that there was no further
record of evidence for
the Company as none was
recorded. Exhibit 11 and 18 serie~ are the answers
of the workmen to the
charges against them and
such replies as they gave to questions put !fl thr.m
in cross-examination.
·
1
•
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
169
The Tribunal held that the enquiry was
vitiated because it was not held in accordance with
the principles of natural justice. It is contended
that this conclusion was erroneous.
But we have no
doubt about its correctness.
The enquiry consisted
of putting questions to each workman in turn.
No
witness was examined in support
of the charge
before the workman was que~tioned. 'It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to
answer a charge must know not only the accusation
but also the testimony by which the accusation is
supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear
the evidence in surport of the charge and to put such
relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he
desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut
the evidence led against him.
This is the barest
requirement of an enquiry of this character and this
requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the
result of the enquiry can be accepted.
A departure
from this requirement in effect throws the burden
upon the person charged to repel the charge without
first making it out against him.
In the present case
neither was any witness examined nor was any statement made by any witness tendered in evidence.
The enquiry, such as it was, was made by Mr. Marshall or Mr. Nichols who were not only in the
position of judges but also of prosecutors and witnesses.
There was no opportunity to the persons
charged to cross-examine them
and indeed they
drew upon their own knowledge of the incident and
instead cross-examined the persons charged.
This
was such a travesty of the principles of natural
justice that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the
findings and asking the Company to prove the allegation against each workman dr, novo before it.
In the enquiry which the Tribunal held the
Company examined five witnesses including Mr.
Marshall, Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dhawan, who were
the eye-witnesses.
In view of the fact that the
1963
l11e1nglas Tea E#alt
v.
Its Workme:ri
Hiday1tullah J.
1963
Afttnt Jss 71• F:slaJt
v.
Its •VorAmta
Hiiayatu/lah J.
. ... ~
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
enquiry was being made into an incident which took
place four and a half years ago the Tribun<1l in
assessing the evidence held that it wou Id not accept
that any workman was incriminated unless at least
two witnesses deposed against him.
Some of the
workmen got the benefit of this approach and it is
now contended that the Tribunal was in error in
insisting upon corroboration before accepting the
evidence of a single witness.
Reference
in this
connection is made to s. 13.( of the Indian Evidence
Act (I of 1872) which lays down that no particular
number of witnesses shall in any case be required for
the proof of any fact.
It is not a question of an
rrror in applying the Evidence Act. It is rather a
question of proceeding with caution in a case where
admittedly many persons were involved and the incident itself took place a very long time ago.
The
Tribunal acted with ca11tion and did not act upon
uncorroborated testimony. It is possible, that the evidence against somr of the persons to whom the benefit has gone, might be cogent enough for accrptance,
but the question is not one of believing a single
witness in respect of any particular workman but of
treating all workmen alike and following a method
which was likely to eliminate reasonably chances of
faulty observation or incorrect recollec.tion.
On the
whole, it cannot be said that the Tribunal adopted
an approach which made it impossible for the company to prove its case. It followed a standard which
in the circumstances was prudent.
We do not think
that for this reason an interference is called for.
Since no other point was argued the appeal of the
Company in respect of the t~n workmen, who were
alleged to be concerned in the occurrence of January
18, Hl'if>, must be dismissed.
This brings us to the consideraticn of the three
special cases.
They concern Dasarath Barick (:-lo.
25), Lea Bichu (No. 2fl) and Nester Munda (J\o. ~i).
Dasarath Barick was said to h;tve lhreatencd the
-
-----}-..
2. S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
171
loyal workers and to have prevented them from work
on March 15, 1956. Lea Bichu was said to have
forced tae chowkidar to hand over the keys of the
gate to him on the same day and to have locked the
gate with a view to hampering the movement of
workmen.
The Tribunal held that the enquiry in
both the cases was not a proper enquiry and the con·
clusion was not acceptable.
Here, fl.gain no witness
was examined in the enquiry to
prove the two
occurrences and even before the Tribunal there was
no evidence against them except the uncorroborated
testimony
of Mr. Marshall. No
worker was
examined
to prove that he was threatened by
Dasarath Barick or to show that it was Lea Bichu
who had taken the keys from the chowkidar and
locked the gate.
In view of these circumstances the
Tribunal was justified in not accepting the findings
which proceeded almost on no evidence. We agree
with the Tribunal that no case was made out
before the Tribunal for the dismissal of Dasarath
Barick and Lea Bichu.
The last case is of Nester Munda who is the
Secretary of the Union.
It was alleged against him
that on January 16, 1956, he had abused Mr. ·
Nichols and had demonstrated at the head of a
hostile group of work>nen.
Here, again, no proper
enquiry was held and the conclusion reached at
the enquiry by the Company was not acceptable.
The Tribunal, therefore, enquired into the case for
itself.
Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dhawan gave evidence
which the Tribunal was not prepared to accept. It
pointed out that their testimony conflicted on vital
points. Since the Tribunal had the opportunity of
hearing and seeing Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dhawan
we should be slow to reach a conclusion different from
that of the Tribunal. In addition, in such cases,
it is not the practice of this Court to enter into
evidence with a view to finding facts for itself.
Following this well settled practice we see no reason
1963
Meenglas Tea E;tate
v.
Its fVorkmen
Hidayatullah- J .:
1963
M<1.ngtas Tta FJlt.tt
v.
lls H'orkmm
Hi44yoM/ah J.
/963
M•rrn 4
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
I
to interfere with the conculsion of the Trihunal.
The result is that the appeal fails and is dis·
missed with costs.
A ppP.<Jl dismiMrd.
LAKKIREDDI CHIN:'>:A VEl\KATA REDDI
v.
LAKKIREDDI LAKSHMAl\fA
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAR and
j. C. SHAH jj.)
Hindu Law~loinr family prop<rly-i'artirion-lligld of
niinor-,)l't'f',ranct of joint property-Su.it for ]Xlrlitinn by 111inor if
can be con.Jini£ed a/kr hi8 dfath-Sej><r-TfJte or
self·ar"luirc<l property, when impru.ed wilh rhe charact.r of joinl family prop<,.ty.
Butchi Tirupati was a member of a Hindu co-parcenary
consisting of himself, his five l>rothcrs and his son P11Ila Reddy.
After llutchi Tripati's death in 1947, Pulla Reddy, his sou and
Lakshmaina, his wido,v, filed a st1it for partition and separate
possession of their share in the properly of the joint family
an<l a fourth share in certain property
devised under a \VilJ
executed by \'en<'1ta Konda
Reddy in July, 1910.
l'ulla
Reddy was then a minor and his in.other acted as his nex"
friend. Pulla Reddy died during the pendency of the suit and
his mother \Va~ shown ln the record as his legal representative
for the suit.
The suit v:as contested on the gro11nd that it
was highly μrejudicial to the interest of P11lla Redciy to hAV(' his
share separatt!d from the joint f;unily '"-,tale. It WA-'i also denied
that Pulla Reddy aoJd ht• mother had been driven away from
the family house.
·
The trial court holrl th;ll part1t1on of the joint family
property was for the benefit of the minor P11lla Reddy and tho
High Court affirmed that view. Two questions raised before
the Supreme Court were whether the suit for partition of jollii