Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award in a service dispute. The Court reiterated that it will not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the Tribunal unless the findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, or based on extraneous considerations. The Tribunal’s award, being well-reasoned and supported by material on record, did not warrant interference under Article 226.
Facts
The petitioner corporation, a state financial body, had terminated the services of an employee following an internal inquiry that found him guilty of misconduct. The employee challenged the termination before the Industrial Tribunal, alleging procedural irregularities and denial of natural justice.
The Tribunal, upon detailed appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held the termination unjustified and ordered reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits.
The corporation assailed this award in the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction and misapplied the law.
Issues
- Whether the Industrial Tribunal’s findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence, justifying interference by the High Court under Article 226.
- Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence and substituting the employer’s decision.
- Whether the award of full back wages was legally sustainable.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner corporation contended that:
- The inquiry was fair, following all procedural safeguards, and the findings were supported by evidence.
- The Tribunal had erred in reappreciating the evidence and interfering with the disciplinary authority’s conclusions.
- The grant of full back wages was contrary to settled law, especially when the employer’s action was bona fide.
- The scope of judicial review in industrial disputes did not permit the Court or Tribunal to act as an appellate authority over domestic inquiries.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent employee argued that:
- The disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by violations of natural justice, including denial of adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and reliance on documents not supplied to him.
- The findings of guilt were perverse and unsupported by evidence, and were based on conjecture.
- The Tribunal, after a full hearing, found the termination unjustified, and such findings based on evidence could not be disturbed.
- Full back wages were justified as the termination had caused complete loss of livelihood for years.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the settled principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory, not appellate. Judicial interference is warranted only when:
- Findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
- There is a violation of natural justice.
- The authority has acted beyond its jurisdiction or taken into account irrelevant considerations.
The Court referred to Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, which empowers the Tribunal to reappraise evidence in certain cases, but emphasized that such reappraisal must be justified by facts indicating unfair or illegal inquiry.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on:
- Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1964 SC 477) — Clarifying the limits of writ jurisdiction and the concept of perversity in findings.
- Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe (1975) 2 SCC 661 — Holding that once an award is based on proper evidence, courts should refrain from interference.
- Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. v. Management (1973) 1 SCC 813 — Outlining the scope of Tribunal’s power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
These precedents were applied to hold that the Tribunal’s award did not suffer from perversity or legal infirmity.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- The Tribunal had carefully examined the inquiry process and concluded it was vitiated due to procedural lapses.
- The conclusion that the charges were not proved was based on an objective evaluation of evidence.
- The Tribunal was within its statutory powers under Section 11A to set aside the termination and order reinstatement.
- The award of full back wages was justified given the prolonged unemployment and absence of any evidence that the employee was gainfully employed during the period.
Conclusion
The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s award, directing the petitioner corporation to comply with the order of reinstatement and payment of full back wages within a stipulated period.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that:
- High Courts will not interfere with Industrial Tribunal awards unless there is clear perversity or illegality.
- Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act gives Tribunals wide powers to reappreciate evidence where the inquiry is defective.
- Full back wages can be granted when termination is wholly unjustified and the employee is found not to have been gainfully employed.
Cases Referred and Their Relevance
- Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan — Limits on writ jurisdiction.
- Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe — Courts must not interfere with evidence-based awards.
- Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. v. Management — Tribunal’s powers under Section 11A.
FAQs
Q1. When will a High Court interfere with an Industrial Tribunal’s award?
Only when the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or when there is a violation of natural justice.
Q2. Can a Tribunal reappreciate evidence in a disciplinary inquiry?
Yes, under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly if the inquiry is found to be defective.
Q3. Is awarding full back wages always mandatory when termination is set aside?
No, but it is justified when the termination is wholly unjustified and there is no evidence of gainful employment.