# TATA OIL MILLS CO. LTD v. ITS WORKMEN IP B. GAJl!M>RAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO AND K. c

- **Citation:** [1964] 7 S.C.R. 555
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964-03-31
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 517 of 1963
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tata-oil-mills-co-ltd-v-its-workmen-ip-b-gajl-m-ragadkar-c-j-k-n-wanchoo-and-k-c-3164
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

7S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
555
TATA OIL MILLS CO. LTD.
v.
ITS WORKMEN
IP B. GAJl!M>RAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO AND K. c.
DAS GUPTA, JJ.]
IndustTiaL
Dispute-Assault
on
co-employee-Whether
Standing Order 22(viii) attracted-Domestic enquiry-Findings
binding unless shown to be Perverse or enidence lackingCrimina! Trial also'pending-Failure to stay enquiry, if vitiates
enquiTj/-Standing Order 22(viii).
On a report that R and M, both timployees of the appellant
waylaid A, another employee and assaulted him outside the
factory, the appellant held an enquiry ang sought approval for
the dismissal of R and M from the Industrial Tribunal, before
which an industrial dispute was pending. The Tribunal approved the dismissal of R but not that of M. Thereupon R was di,:-
missed. The respondent raised an industrial dispute in rEgard
to the propriety and validity of the said dismissal. On refen.
ence of this dispute, the Industrial Tribunal held that the
assault could be treated as a private matter between R and A
with which the appellant was not concerned and as a result
Standing Order 22(viii) could not be invoked against R, and it
ordered the reinstatement of R. On appeal by special !€ave:
Held: (i) that It would be unreasonable to include within
Standing Order 22(viii) any riotous behaviour without the
factory which was the result of purely private and individual
dispute and in course of which tempers of both the contestants
become hot. In order that standin!ll order 22(viii) may be
attracted, the appellant should be able to show that the disorderly or riotous behaviour had some rational connection with
the employment of the assailant and the victim.
(ii) In the present case the assault by R on A was not a
purely private or individual matter but was referable to the
difference of opinion between the two in regard to the introduction of incentive bonus scheme and that cannot be said to be
outside the purview of standing order 22(viii).
(iii) The Tribunal was in error in coming< to the conclusion that the enquiry suffered from the infirmity that it wa~
conducted contrary to the principles of natural justice.
It is true that if it appears that by refusing to adjourn
the hearing at lhe instance of charge-sheeted workmen, the
Enquiry Officer failed· to give the said workmen a reasonable
opportunity to lead evidence, that may in a proper case, be
considered to introduce an element of infirmity in the enquiry;
but in the circumstances of this case, it would not be pos!rlble
to draw such an inference.
(iv) The finding of the Tribunal that the dismissal was
malafide, cannot possibly be sustained.
The Tribunal has completely overlooked an elementary
principle of judicial approach that even if a judge or Tribunal
may reach an erroneous conclusion either 0£ fact or of law;
the mere error of the conclusion does not make the conclusion
malafide.
1964
March 81
1964
Tata Oil MilZ. Oo.
Ltd.
v.
Its WOl'kmen
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[196(]
(v) Since the domestic enquiry had been fairly conducted,
and the findings recorded therein were based on Evidence
which was believed, there was no justification for the Industrial
Tribunal to consider the same facts f0r itself. Findings properly recorded at such enquiries are binding on parties, unless,
of course, it is shown that such findings are perverse or are not
based on any evidence.
Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen,
[1960] t S.C.R. 32,
referred to.
(vi) Th<! Industrial Tribunal was in error when it characterised the ~esult' of the domestic enquiry as malafide ·partly
because the enquiry was not stayed pending criminal proceedings against R.
It is desirable that i~ the incident giving rise to a charge
framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried
in a criminal court, the employer should stay the domestic
enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case. lt
would be particularly appropriate to adopt such a course when
the charge is of a grave character because it would be untalr
to com

## Text

7S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
555
TATA OIL MILLS CO. LTD.
v.
ITS WORKMEN
IP B. GAJl!M>RAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO AND K. c.
DAS GUPTA, JJ.]
IndustTiaL
Dispute-Assault
on
co-employee-Whether
Standing Order 22(viii) attracted-Domestic enquiry-Findings
binding unless shown to be Perverse or enidence lackingCrimina! Trial also'pending-Failure to stay enquiry, if vitiates
enquiTj/-Standing Order 22(viii).
On a report that R and M, both timployees of the appellant
waylaid A, another employee and assaulted him outside the
factory, the appellant held an enquiry ang sought approval for
the dismissal of R and M from the Industrial Tribunal, before
which an industrial dispute was pending. The Tribunal approved the dismissal of R but not that of M. Thereupon R was di,:-
missed. The respondent raised an industrial dispute in rEgard
to the propriety and validity of the said dismissal. On refen.
ence of this dispute, the Industrial Tribunal held that the
assault could be treated as a private matter between R and A
with which the appellant was not concerned and as a result
Standing Order 22(viii) could not be invoked against R, and it
ordered the reinstatement of R. On appeal by special !€ave:
Held: (i) that It would be unreasonable to include within
Standing Order 22(viii) any riotous behaviour without the
factory which was the result of purely private and individual
dispute and in course of which tempers of both the contestants
become hot. In order that standin!ll order 22(viii) may be
attracted, the appellant should be able to show that the disorderly or riotous behaviour had some rational connection with
the employment of the assailant and the victim.
(ii) In the present case the assault by R on A was not a
purely private or individual matter but was referable to the
difference of opinion between the two in regard to the introduction of incentive bonus scheme and that cannot be said to be
outside the purview of standing order 22(viii).
(iii) The Tribunal was in error in coming< to the conclusion that the enquiry suffered from the infirmity that it wa~
conducted contrary to the principles of natural justice.
It is true that if it appears that by refusing to adjourn
the hearing at lhe instance of charge-sheeted workmen, the
Enquiry Officer failed· to give the said workmen a reasonable
opportunity to lead evidence, that may in a proper case, be
considered to introduce an element of infirmity in the enquiry;
but in the circumstances of this case, it would not be pos!rlble
to draw such an inference.
(iv) The finding of the Tribunal that the dismissal was
malafide, cannot possibly be sustained.
The Tribunal has completely overlooked an elementary
principle of judicial approach that even if a judge or Tribunal
may reach an erroneous conclusion either 0£ fact or of law;
the mere error of the conclusion does not make the conclusion
malafide.
1964
March 81
1964
Tata Oil MilZ. Oo.
Ltd.
v.
Its WOl'kmen
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[196(]
(v) Since the domestic enquiry had been fairly conducted,
and the findings recorded therein were based on Evidence
which was believed, there was no justification for the Industrial
Tribunal to consider the same facts f0r itself. Findings properly recorded at such enquiries are binding on parties, unless,
of course, it is shown that such findings are perverse or are not
based on any evidence.
Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen,
[1960] t S.C.R. 32,
referred to.
(vi) Th<! Industrial Tribunal was in error when it characterised the ~esult' of the domestic enquiry as malafide ·partly
because the enquiry was not stayed pending criminal proceedings against R.
It is desirable that i~ the incident giving rise to a charge
framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried
in a criminal court, the employer should stay the domestic
enquiry pending the final disposal of the criminal case. lt
would be particularly appropriate to adopt such a course when
the charge is of a grave character because it would be untalr
to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he may
t'1ke oefore the criminal court. But to say that domestlc enquiries may be stayed pending ·criminal trial is very different
from saying that if an employer proceeds with the domestic
enquiry inspite of the fact that the cniminal trial is pending,
the enquiry for that reason alone is vitiated and the conclusion
arrived at in such an enquiry is either bad in law or malafide.
Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Kishan Bhan [1960] 3
S.C.R. 227, Ieferred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 517
of 1963. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
September 28, 1960 of the Industrial Tribunal, Emakulam,
in Industrial Dispute No. 81 of 1958.
G. B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder
Narain, for the appellant.
P. Govinda Menon, M. S. K. Iyengar and M. R. K.
Pillai, for respondent No. 1.
March 31, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
Gajeni.lragadkar o.J
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J.-This appeal by special leave
'
'raises a short question about the validity of the order passed
·
by the Industrial Tribunal, Emakulam, directing the appellant, the Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., to reinstate its workman
K. K. Raghavan whom it had dismissed with effect from the
14th of November, 1955. The appellant is a public limited concern engaged in the industry of soaps and toilet articles. It
owns three factories in addition to 12 sales offices. One of
these factories is located at Tatapuram, Emakulam, in the
State of Kerala. Mr. Raghavan was working with the appellant at its factory at Tatapuram. It was reported to the
appellant that on the 12th November, 1955, Mr. Raghavan
and another employee of the appellant, Mr. Mathews by
name, waylaid Mr. C. A. Augustine, the Chargeman of the
•
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
557
'
Soap Plant of the company's factory at Tatapuram while he
1964
was returning home after his duty in the second shift and Tala Oil MiU. Oo.
assaulted hiin. That is why charge-sheets were issued against
Lltj, ...
both Messrs Raghavan and Mathews on the 14th November,
It• Workmeto.
1955. Pursuant to the service of the clurge-sheets, two offi-
.
-
cers were appointed by the appellant to hold an enquiry, but Ga3endragall.1'ar,CJ.
the respondent Union represented to the appellant that justice would not be done to Raghavan and Mathews unless
somebody outside Tatapuram was invited to hold the
· enquiry. Thereupon, the General Mauager of the appellant
appointed Mr. Y. D. Joshi, who is a Law Officer of the appellant in the Head Office, to hold the enquiry. Mr. Joshi
held the enquiry from the 27th to 30th December, 1955, and
subsequently, he made his report to the General Manager of
the appellant on the 7th January, 1956. At that time, an
industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and its
employees, and so, the appellant applied to the Industrial
Tribunal for approval of the dismissal of Mei;srs Raghavan
and Mathews. The Tribunal approved of the dismissal of
Raghavan, but did not accord its approval of the dismissal
of Mathews. Acting in pursuance of the approval accorded
by the Tribunal, the appellant dismissed Raghavan with effect
from the 14th November, 1955. Not satisfied with the order
of dismissal, the respondent raised an industrial dispute in
regard to the propriety and validity of the said dismissal of
Raghavan and that has become the subject-matter of the
present reference which was ordered on the 3rd of December,
1958. It is on this reference that the Industrial Tribunal has
held that the appellant was not justified in dismissing·
Raghavan, and so, has ordered his reinstatement. This is the
order which has given rise to the present appeal by special
leave.
The first pbint which calls for our decision in this appeal
is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the fac~
proved against Raghavan did not attract the provisions of
Standing Order 22( viii) of the Certified Standing Orders of
the appellant. The said standing order provides that without
prejudice to the general meaning of the term "misconduct",
it shall be deemed to mean and incltide, inter alia, drunkenness, fighting, riotous or disorderly or indecent behaviour
within or without the factory .. It is common ground that the
alleged assault took place outside the factory, and; in fact,
at a considerable distance from it. The Tribunal has held
that the assault in question can be treated as a purely private
matter between Raghav:an and Augustine with which the
appellant was not concerned and as a result of which stand·
ing order 22(viii) cannot be 'invoked against Raghavan. Mr •
Menon \Vho has appeared for the respondent before us, has
558
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964}'
1964
contended that in construing standing orders of this characToto Oil ]fals Co. ter, we must take care to see that disputes of a purely private
Ltd.
or individual type are not brought within their scope. He
11, 1;~,b"'n
argues that on many occasions, individual employees may
have to deal with private disputes and sometimes, as a result
Gajeodrogadk",a.J. of these private disputes, assault may be committed. Such an
assault may attract the relevant provisions of the Indian
Penal Code, but it does not fall under standing order 22(viii).
l n our opinion. this contention is well-founded. It would,
we think. be unreasonable to include within standing order
22(viii) any riotous behaviour without the factory which was
the result of purely private and individual dispute and in
course of which tempers of both the contestants became hot.
In order that standing order 22(viii) may be attracted. the
appellant should· be able to show that the disorderly or riotous behaviour had some rational connection with the employment of the assailant and the victim.
In the present case, l10wever, it is quite clear that the
assault committed by Raghavan on Augustine was not a purely private or individual matter. What the occasion for this
assault was and what motive actuated it, have been considered by the domestic Tribunal and the findings of the domestic
Tribunal on these points must be accepted in the present
proceedings. unless they are shown to be based on no evidence or are otherwise perverse. Now. when we look at the
report of the Enquiry Officer, it is clear that on the evidence
given by Mr. M. M. Augustine and K. T. Joseph it appeared
that the
assault was committed by Raghavan on C. A.
Augustine, because he was in favour of the introduction of
the Incentive Bonus Scheme. It appears that the introduction
of this incentive bonus scheme was approved by one set of
workmen and was opposed by another, with the result that
the two rival unions belonging to these two sets respectively
were arrayed against each other on that question. The evidence of the two witnesses to whom we have just referred
clearly shows that when Raghavan assaulted C. A. Augustine,
he expressly stated that Augustine was a black-leg IK.arinkali) who was interested in increased production in the company with a view to obtain bonus; and the report further
shows that the Enquiry Officer believed this evidence and
came to the conclusion that the assault was motivated by this
hostility between Raghavan and C. A. Augustine. In [act,
the charge framed clearly suggested that the assault was made
for that motive. It was alleged in the charge that Augustine
was assaulted to terrorise the workmen who had been responsible for givin~ 'ncreasrr. production under the incentive
bonus scheme. f.-· .ord;'.lg to the charge, such acts were highly subversive of disciplinP. The Enquiry Officer has held that
in the light of the evidence given by M. M. Augustine and
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
559
1964
K. T. Joseph, the charge as framed had been proved. This
finding clearly means that the assault was not the result of Tata Oil Mills Oo.
a purely individual or private quarrel between the assailant
Lid.
and his victim, but it was referable to the difference of opi·
1,, w:;kme,.
nion between the two in regard to the introduction of the
-
incentive bonus scheme on which the two unions were sharp·Gajenclragadkar,o.J.
ly divided. Therefore, if Raghavan assaulted Augustine
wlely for the reason that Augustine was supporting the plea
for more production, that cannot be said to be outside the
purview of standing order 22(viii).
The next point which needs to be considered arises out
of a plea which has been strenuously urged before us by Mr.
Menon that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the
Enquiry Otlicer did not conduct the enquiry in accordance
with the principles of natural justice, and so, the Tribunal
was entitled to go into the evidence itself and decide whether
Ragha van "s disillissal was justified or not. The legal position
in this matter is not in doubt. If it appears that the domestic
enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles
of the natural justice and a reasonable opportunity was not,
for instance. given to Raghavan to lead evidence in support
of his defence. that would be a valid ground on which the
Tribunal can discard the finding of the domestic enquiry and
consider the matter on the merits uninfluenced by the said
finding. Unfortunately for the respondent, however, on the
material on record it is very difficult to sustain the finding'.
of the Tribunal that the Enquiry Officer jid not conduct the
enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The whole of this contention is based on the fact that
Raghavan wanted to examine two witresses, Messrs M. P.
Menon and Chalakudi. It appears that Raghavan told the
Enquiry Officer that he wanted to examine these two witnesses and he requested him to invite the said two witnesses
to give evidence.
The Enquiry Officer
told
Raghavan
that it was really not a part of his duty to call the
said two witnesses and that Raghavan should in fact
have kept them ready himself.
Even so, in order to assist
Raghavan, the Enquiry Officer wrote letters to the two
witnesses. Mr. Menon replied expressing his inability to be
present before the Enquiry Officer. and the Enquiry Officer
communicated this reply to Raghavan. so that for Raghavan's
failure to examine Menon no blame can be attributed to the
enquiry officer at all. In regard to Chalakudi. it appears tha.t
he sent one letter addressed to the Enquiry Officer and it reached him on the 31st December. 1955, the day on which he wa~
leaving for Bombay. This letter was not signed, and so, the
Enquiry Officer took no action on it and gave no time to
Chalakudi to appear three or four days later as had been
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[I964J
1964
· suggested in that unsigned letter. The Tribunal thought
Tata Oil Mill• oo. that this attitude on the part of the Enquiry Officer
Ltd.
was unsympathetic and that introduced an element of
118 W:;.kme,.
unfairness in the enquiry itself. We are unable to appreciate how such a conclusion can follow on facts which are
Gajew1ragadkar,O.J. admitted. We do not think the Enquiry Officer was called
upon to accept an unsigned letter and act upon it. Besides,
the Enquiry Officer had gone to Ernakulam from Bombay
for holding this enquiry, because the respondent Union itself
wanted that the enquiry should be held by some other officer
outside the local station and it was known that the Bombay
Officer would go back as soon as the enquiry was over. In
such a case, if Raghavan did not take steps to produce his
witnesses before the Enquiry Officer, how can it be said that
the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice? Mr. Menon has
suggested that the Enquiry Officer should have taken steps
to get the witnesses M. P. Menon and Chalakudi brought
before him for giving evidence. This suggestion is clearl}
untenable. In a domestic enquiry, the officer holding the enquiry can take no valid or effective steps to compel the
attendance of any witness; just as the appellant produced its
witnesses bebre the officer, Raghavan should have taken
steps to produce his witnesses. His witness Menon probably
took the view that it was beneath his dignity to appear in a
domestic enquiry, and Chalakudi was content to send an
unsigned letter and that too so as to reach the Enquiry Officer on the day when he was leaving Ernakulam for Bombay.
It would be unreasonable to suggest that in a domestic enquiry, it is the right of the charge-sheeted employee to ask
for as many adjournments as he likes. It is true that if it
appears that by refusing to adjourn the hearing at the instance
of the charge-sheeted workman, the Enquiry Officer failed
to give the said workman a reasonable opportunity to lead
evidence, that may, in a proper case, be considered to intrtJ..
duse an element of infirmity in the enquiry; but in the
circumstances of this case, we do not think it would be
possible to draw such an inference. The record shows that
the Enquiry Officer went out of his way to assist Raghavan;
and if the witnesses did not turn up to give evidence in time,
it was not his fault. We must accordingly hold that the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry
suffered from the infirmity that it was conducted contrary to
the principles of natural justice.
Let us then consider whether the dismissal of Ragbavan
is actuated by malafides, or amounts
to victimisation. In
regard to the plea of victimisation, the Tribunal has definitoly found against the respondent. "I do not for a moment
believe", says the Tribunal, "that the management foisted a
.1
'
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
561
case against the ex-worker. Regarding the allegation of victi1961
misation, there is no sufficient evidence in the case that the Tata Oil Mills oo.
management or its Manager Mr. John was motivated with
Ltd.
victimisation or unfair labour practice". This finding is quite
v.
Its Workmen
clearly in favour of the appellant. The Tribunal, however,
thought that because the Enquiry Officer did not give an Gnjcndragadka~, o:J .
. adjournment to Raghavan to examine his witnesses, that
introduced an element of malafides. It has also observed that
since the case against Raghavan did not fall within the purview of standing order 22(viii) and yet, the appellant framed
a charge against Raghavan under that standing order, that
introduced another element of malatides. It is on thc~e
grounds that the conclusion as to malafides recorded by the
Tribunal seems to rest.
In regard to the first ground, we have already held that
the Tribunal was not justified in blaming the Enquiry Officer
for not adjourning the case beyond 31st December, 1955. In
regard to the second ground, we are surprised that the Tribunal should have taken the view that since in its opinion,
standing order 22(viii) did not apply to the facts of this case,
the framing of-the charge under the said standing order and
the finding of the domestic Tribunal in favour of the appellant on that ground showed malafides. It seems to us that the
Tribunal has completely overlooked an elementary principle
of judicial approach that even if a judge or Tribunal may
reach an erroneous conclusion either of fact or of law, the
mere error of the conclusion does not make the conclusion
malafiedes. Besides, as we have just indicated, on the merits
we are satisfied that the Tribunal was in error in holding
that standing order 22(viii) did not apply.
Therefore, the
finding of the Tribunal that the dismissal of Raghavan was
malafiqe, cannot possibly be sustained.
There is·one more point which has been pressed before
us by Mr. Menon. In Phulbari Tea Estate v. Its Workmen,(')
this Court has held that even if a domestic enquiry is found
to be defective, the employer may seek to justify the dismissal of his employee by leading evidence before the Tribunal
to which an industrial dispute arising out of the impugned
dismissal has been referred for adjudication. Mr. Menon contends that by parity of reasoning, in cases where the employee is unable to lead his evidence before the domestic
Tribunal for no fault of his own, a similar opportunity should
be given to him to prove his case in proceedings before the
Industrial Tribunal.
In our opinion, this contention is not
well-founded. The decision in the case of Phulbari Tea Estate
(supra) proceeds on. the basis which is of basic importance
in industrial adjudication that findings properly recorded in
(') [1960] I S.C.R. 32.
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
1964
domestic enquiries which are conducted fairly, cannot be re-
·Taia Oil Milla co, examined by Industrial adjudication unless the said findings
Ltd.
are either perverse, or are not supported by any evidence, or
v.
some other valid reason of that character. In such a case,
Its TYorkmen
the fact that the finding is not accepted by the Industrial
(lajendrag•dknr,C.J. Tribunal would not necessarily preclude the employee from
justifying the dismissal of his employee on the merits, provided, of course, he leads evidence before the Industrial Tribunal and persuades the Tribunal to accept his case. That,
however. is very different from a case like the present. In the
case before us, the enquiry has been fair, the Enquiry Officer
gave Raghavan ample opportunity to lead his evidence. If
a reasonable opportunity had been denied to the employee,
that would have made the enquiry itself bad and then. the
employer would have been required to prove his case before
the Industrial Tribunal, and in dealing with the dispute, the
Industrial Tribunal would have been justified in completely
ignoring the findings of the domestic enquiry. But if the enquiry has been fairly conducted, it means that all reasonable
opportunity has been given to the employee to prove his case
by leading evidence. In such a case, how can the court hold
that merely
because the witnesses did not appear to give
evidence in. support of the employee's · case, he should be
allowed to lead such evidence before the Industrial Tribunal.
If this plea is upheld, no domestic enquiry would be effective
and in every case, the matter would have to be tried afresh
by the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are not prepared
to accede to Mr. Menon's argument that the Tribunal was
justified in considering the merits of the dispute for itself in
the present reference proceedings.
Since the enquiry has
been fairly conducted, and the findings recorded therein are
based on evidence which is believed, there would be no justification for the Industrial Tribunal to consider the same facts
for itself. Findings properly recorded at such enquiries are
binding on the parties, unless, of course, it is known that the
said findings are perverse, or are not based on any evidence.
Th.ere is yet another point which remains to be considered. The Industrial Tribunal appears to have taken the
view that since criminal proceedings had been started against
Raghavan, the domestic enquiry should have been stayed
pending the final disp0sal of the said criminal proceedings.
As this Court has held in the Delhi Cloth and General Mills·
Ltd. v. Kushal Bhan,(') it is desirable that if the incident
giving rise to a charge framed against a workman in a domestic enquiry is being tried in a criminal ~ourt, the employer,
should· stay the domestic enquiry pending the fini!l disposal
of 'the criminal case. It would be particularly appropriate to
(') [1960] 3 S.C.R. 227.
. .
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
563
adopt such ·a course where the charge against the workman is
1964
of a grave character, because in such a case, it would be un- Tt1ta Oil Mms Co.
fair to compel the workman to disclose the defence which he
Ltd.
may take before the criminal court. But to say that domestic
11, 11~;,kmrn
enquiries may be stayed pending criminal trial is very differ-
-
ent from saying that if an employer proceeds with the domes-Gajr-ndmaadka' ,C.J.
tic enquiry in spite of the fact that the criminal trial is
pending, the enquiry for that reason alone is vitiated
and the conclusion reached in such an enquiry is either bad
in law or malafide. In fairness, we ought to add that Mr.
Menon did not seek to justify this extreme position. Therefore, we must hold that the Industrial Tribunal was in error
when it characterised the result of the domestic enquiry as
malafide partly because the enquiry was not stayed pending
the criminal proceedings against Raghavan. We accordingly
hold that the domestic enquiry in this case was properly held
and fairly conducted and the conclusions of fact reached by
the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence which he accepted
as true. That being so, it was not open to the Industrial Tribunal to reconsider the same questions of fact and come to a
contrary conclusion.
The result is, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by
the Industrial Tribunal is set aside and the reference made to
it is answered in favour of the appellant. Before we part with
this appeal, we ought to add that Mr. Pai for the appellant
has fairly offered to pay ex gratia Rs. 1,000 /- to Raghavan in
addition to the amount which has already been paid to him
by the appellant in pursuance of the order of this Court granting stay to the appellant pending the final disposal of the
present appeal. There would be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed .