[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradhan Mantri vs Manager on 26 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
1
M.P. No.3 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 26th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 3 of 2017
PRADHAN MANTRI AND OTHERS
Versus
MANAGER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Arun Kumar Patel - Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Devansh Verma - Advocate for respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present petition is arising out of the award dated 01.06.2016
passed by the Labour Court, whereby the Labour Court has rejected the
reference proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act to the extent of
workman Shivratan on the ground that the legal representatives have
not offered any evidence, therefore, the deceased workman is not
entitled to get any relief from the Labour Court.
2. The necessary facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of present
petition are that the representative Union had filed a dispute before the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
Conciliation Officer and the matter was referred by the appropriate
government on 09.10.1986 in respect of punitive action taken against
as many as 13 workmen on the allegation that they indulged in "go-
slow" and on that allegation their services were terminated.
3. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue as to the validity of
enquiry proceedings and the preliminary issue was answered in favour
of the workmen holding that the enquiry is vitiated and null and void.
Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded to decide the proceedings on
merits.
4. It is apposite to mention here that the workman Shivratan had
expired in the year 2004 and his legal representatives had been
impleaded in his place. As per the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P)
Ltd., reported in (1973) 1 SCC 813 in case of no enquiry or a vitiated
enquiry, the Labour Court is under obligation to take evidence as to
merits of the misconduct against the workman. The said exercise was
conducted by the Labour Court only in respect of 11 workmen but in
respect of workman - Shivratan, such exercise was not undertaken
because his legal representatives did not offer any evidence. It is the
sole reason for rejection of the reference proceedings as against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
workman Shivratan.
5. The Labour Court is under obligation to record evidence on
merits of misconduct in view of judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Firestone Tyre & Rubber (supra) and it is the
management who has to lead evidence to prove the misconduct against
the workman after the enquiry has been held to be vitiated and it is not
the workman who is to lead evidence. The workman would only rebut
the evidence placed on record by the employer to prove the misconduct
against the workman.
6. The opportunity to the management to lead evidence in support
of misconduct was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd.,
(1973) 1 SCC 813 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 32 has
held as under:-
"32. From those decisions, the following principles broadly emerge:
(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide upon the quantum
of punishment are mainly managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred
to a Tribunal, the latter has power to see if action of the employer is justified.
(2) Before imposing the punishment, an employer is expected to conduct
a proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders,
if applicable, and principles of natural justice. The enquiry should not be
an empty formality.
(3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an employer, and the
finding of misconduct is a plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence,
adduced at the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in
judgment over the decision of the employer as an appellate body. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
interference with the decision of the employer will be justified only when the
findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the management is guilty
of victimisation, unfair labour practice or mala fide.
(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry
held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself
about the legality and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity to
the employer and employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the
employer to adduce evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it
is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.
(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry is that the Tribunal
would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case. On
the other hand, the issue about the merits of the impugned order of dismissal
or discharge is at large before the Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence
adduced before it, has to decide for itself whether the misconduct alleged is
proved. In such cases, the point about the exercise of managerial functions
does not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the same footing
as no enquiry.
(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the evidence placed before
it for the first time in justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry has
been held or after the enquiry conducted by an employer is found to be
defective.
(7) It has never been recognised that the Tribunal should straightaway,
without anything more, direct reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged
employee, once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the
said enquiry is found to be defective.
(8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the opportunity of
adducing evidence for the first time before the Tribunal to justify his action,
should ask for it at the appropriate stage. If such an opportunity is asked for,
the Tribunal has no power to refuse. The giving of an opportunity to an
employer to adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal is in the
interest of both the management and the employee and to enable the
Tribunal itself to be satisfied about the alleged misconduct.
(9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the enquiry conducted by an
employer or by the evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first time,
punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in
cases where the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimisation.
(10) In a particular case, after setting aside the order of dismissal,
whether a workman should be reinstated or paid compensation is, as held
by this Court in Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. Workmens [(1971) 1
SCC 742] within the judicial decision of a Labour Court or Tribunal."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. The Supreme Court in para 32(4) held that even if no enquiry was
held by the employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself of legality and validity
of the order has to give opportunity to the employer and employee to
adduce evidence before it. The basic objective is that the Labour Court
is called upon to decide upon the industrial dispute and not merely to
decide the validity of dismissal or termination order or any action taken
against the workman.
8. It was held by the Supreme Court as far back in the year 1965 in
the case of Workmen vs. Motipur Sugar Factory, reported in AIR 1965
SC 1803 that once the dismissal is set aside by the industrial Tribunal
only on the ground of dismissal being without holding a valid enquiry
and without holding the enquiry then the employer will immediately
thereafter proceed to hold the enquiry against the dismissal order
against the employee which will rise another industrial dispute and this
will only delay the settlement of the Industrial Dispute which has been
raised before the Industrial Tribunal. In the case of Firestone Tyre
(supra) this issue was also dealt with in para 28. In para 26 to 29 of the
aforesaid judgement, it was held as under:-
"26. The powers of a tribunal when a proper enquiry has been
held by an employer as well as the procedure to be adopted when
no enquiry at all has been held or an enquiry held was found to be
defective, again came up for consideration in Management of Ritz
Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Workmens [AIR 1963 SC 295 : (1963) 3 SCR
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
461 : (1962) 2 Lab LJ 498] Regarding the powers of a Tribunal
when there has been a proper and fair enquiry, it was held:
"It is well settled that if an employer serves the relevant
charge or charges on his employee and holds a proper
and fair enquiry, it would be open to him to act upon the
report submitted to him by the enquiry officer and to
dismiss the employee concerned. If the enquiry has been
properly held, the order of dismissal passed against the
employee as a result of such an enquiry can be challenged
if it is shown that the conclusions reached at the
departmental enquiry were perverse or the impugned
dismissal is vindictive or mala fide, and amounts to an
unfair labour practice. In such an enquiry before the
Tribunal, it is not open to the Tribunal to sit in appeal over
the findings recorded at the domestic enquiry. This Court
has held that when a proper enquiry has been held, it
would be open to the enquiry officer holding the domestic
enquiry to deal with the matter on the merits bona fide
and come to his own conclusion."
Again regarding the procedure to be adopted when there has been
no enquiry or when there has been a defective enquiry, it was stated:
"It has also been held that if it appears that the
departmental enquiry held by the employer is not fair in
the sense that proper charge had not been served on the
employee or proper or full opportunity had not been given
to the employee to meet the charge, or the enquiry has
been affected by other grave irregularities vitiating it,
then the position would be that the Tribunal would be
entitled to deal with the merits of the dispute as to the
dismissal of the employee for itself. The same result
follows if no enquiry has been held at all. In other words,
where the Tribunal is dealing with a dispute relating to
the dismissal of an industrial employee, if it is satisfied
that no enquiry has been held or the enquiry which has
been held is not proper or fair or that the findings
recorded by the enquiry officer are perverse, the whole
issue is at large before the Tribunal. This position also is
well-settled."
It was further held that it is only where a Tribunal is satisfied that a
proper enquiry has not been held or that the enquiry having been
held properly the finding recorded is perverse that the Tribunal
derives jurisdiction to deal with merits of the dispute, when
permission has to be given to an employer to adduce additional
evidence.
27. The right of an employer to lead evidence before the Tribunal
to justify his action was again reiterated in Khardah Co.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR 1964 SC 719 : (1964) 3 SCR 506 : (1963) 2
Lab LJ 452] as follows:
"It is well-settled that if the enquiry is held to be unfair, the
employer can lead evidence before the Tribunal and justify
his action, but in such a case, the question as to whether the
dismissal of the employee is justified or not, would be open
before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal will consider the
merits of the dispute and come to its own conclusion without
having any regard for the view taken by the management in
dismissing the employee."
28. In Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. v. Motipur
Sugar Factory [AIR 1956 SC 1803 : (1965) 3 SCR 588 : (1965) 2
Lab LJ 162] the employer had charge-sheeted certain workmen and
without conducting any enquiry, as required by the standing orders,
passed orders discharging the workmen. Before the Tribunal, the
employer adduced evidence justifying the action taken against the
workmen. The workmen were also given an opportunity to adduce
evidence in rebuttal. After a consideration of such evidence, the
Tribunal held that the workmen were guilty of misconduct alleged
against them and that the orders of discharge paced by the employer
were fully justified. Before this Court it was contended on behalf of
the workmen that when no enquiry whatsoever had been conducted
by the employer, as required by the standing orders, before passing
an order of dismissal or discharge, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction
to hold an enquiry itself by permitting the employer to adduce
evidence before it for the first time. In rejecting this contention, it
was held:
"It is now well-settled by a number of decisions of this
Court that where an employer has failed to make an
enquiry before dismissing or discharging a workman it
is open to him to justify the action before the tribunal
by leading all relevant evidence before it. In such a
case the employer would not have the benefit which he
had in cases where domestic enquiries have been held.
The entire matter would be open before the tribunal
which will have jurisdiction not only to go into the
limited question open to a tribunal where domestic
enquiry has been properly held ... but also to satisfy
itself on the facts adduced before it by the employer
whether the dismissal or discharge was justified.... If
the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held
as required by standing orders, the entire case would
be open before the Tribunal and the employer would
have to justify on facts as well that its order of
dismissal or discharge was proper.... A defective
enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing as
no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would
have to satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of
dismissal or discharge was proper."
28-A. The reasons for allowing an employer to lead evidence before
the Tribunal justifying his action have been stated thus:
"If it is held that in cases where the employer
dismisses his employee without holding an enquiry,
the dismissal must be set aside by the Industrial
Tribunal only on that ground, it would inevitably
mean that the employer will immediately proceed to
hold the enquiry and pass an order dismissing the
employee once again. In that case, another industrial
dispute would arise and the employer would be
entitled to rely upon the enquiry which he had held
in the meantime. This course would mean delay and
on the second occasion it will entitle the employer to
claim the benefit of the domestic enquiry. On the
other hand, if in such cases the employer is given an
opportunity to justify the impugned dismissal on the
merits of his case being considered by the tribunal for
itself and that clearly would be to the benefit of the
employee. That is why this Court has consistently
held that if the domestic enquiry is irregular, invalid
or improper, the tribunal may give an opportunity to
the employer to prove his case and in doing so the
tribunal tries the merits itself. This view is consistent
with the approach which industrial adjudication
generally adopts with a view to do justice between the
parties without relying too much on technical
considerations and with the object of avoiding delay
in the disposal of industrial disputes. Therefore, we
are satisfied that no distinction can be made between
cases where the domestic enquiry is invalid and those
where the enquiry has in fact been held."
29. The rights of an employer to avail itself of an opportunity to
satisfy the Tribunal by adducing evidence, when an enquiry held by
it was found to be defective or when no enquiry at all has been held,
have been stated in State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain [(1972) 1 SCR
755] as follows:
"It should be remembered that when an order of
punishment by way of dismissal or termination of
service is effected by the management, the issue that is
referred is whether the management was justified in
discharging and terminating the service of the
workman concerned and whether the workman is
entitled to any relief. In the present case, the actual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
issue that was referred for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal has already been quoted in the
earlier part of the judgment. There may be cases where
an inquiry has been held preceding the order of
termination or there may have been no inquiry at all.
But the dispute that will be referred is not whether the
domestic inquiry has been conducted properly or not
by the management, but the larger question whether
the order of termination, dismissal or the order
imposing punishment on the workman concerned is
justified. Under those circumstances it is the right of
the workman to plead all infirmities in the domestic
inquiry, if one has been held and also to attack the
order on all grounds available to him in law and on
facts. Similarly the management has also a right to
defend the action taken by it on the ground that a
proper domestic inquiry has been held by it on the
basis of which the order impugned has been passed. It
is also open to the management to justify on facts that
the order passed by it was proper. But the point to be
noted is that the inquiry that is conducted by the
Tribunal is a composite inquiry regarding the order
which is under challenge. If the management defends
its action solely on the basis that the domestic inquiry
held by it is proper and valid and if the Tribunal holds
against the management on that point, the
management will fail. On the other hand, if the
management relies not only on the validity of the
domestic inquiry, but also adduce evidence before the
Tribunal justifying its action, it is open to the Tribunal
to accept the evidence adduced by the management
and hold in its favour even if its finding is against the
management regarding the validity of the domestic
inquiry. It is essentially a matter for the management
to decide about the stand that it proposes to take before
the Tribunal. It may be emphasised, that it is the right
of the management to sustain its order by adducing
also independent evidence before the Tribunal. It is a
right given to the management and it is for the
management to avail itself of the said opportunity."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. The entire law was again considered by a 3-judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Laghu Udyog
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
Employees Union Vs. Judge, Labour Court and another, reported in
2003 (12) SCC 1 and it was held as under:-
"10. In Workmen v. Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd.
[Workmen v. Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd., AIR 1965 SC 1803:
(1965) 3 SCR 588] this Court held: (AIR p. 1808, para 11).
"11. It is now well settled by a number of decisions
of this Court that where an employer has failed to make
an enquiry before dismissing or discharging a
workman it is open to him to justify the action before
the Tribunal by leading all relevant evidence before it.
In such a case the employer would not have the benefit
which he had in cases where domestic inquiries have
been held. The entire matter would be open before the
Tribunal which will have jurisdiction not only to go
into the limited questions open to a Tribunal where
domestic inquiry has been properly held (see Indian
Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Workmen [AIR 1958 SC 130 :
1958 SCR 667] ) but also to satisfy itself on the facts
adduced before it by the employer whether the
dismissal or discharge was justified. We may in this
connection refer to Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P)
Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan [AIR 1959 SC 923 : 1959 Supp
(2) SCR 836] , Phulbari Tea Estate v. Workmen [AIR
1959 SC 1111 : (1960) 1 SCR 32] and Punjab National
Bank Ltd. v. All India Punjab National Bank
Employees' Federation [AIR 1960 SC 160 : (1960) 1
SCR 806] . These three cases were further considered
by this Court in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jai
Singh [(1962) 3 SCR 684 : (1961) 2 LLJ 644] and
reference was also made to the decision of the Labour
Appellate Tribunal in Ram Swarath Sinha v. Belsund
Sugar Co. [1954 LAC 697] It was pointed out that 'the
important effect of omission to hold an enquiry was
merely this: that the Tribunal would not have to
consider only whether there was a prima facie case but
would decide for itself on the evidence adduced
whether the charges have really been made out'. It is
true that three of these cases, except Phulbari Tea
Estate case [AIR 1959 SC 1111 : (1960) 1 SCR 32] ,
were on applications under Section 33 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. But in principle we see no
difference whether the matter comes before the
Tribunal for approval under Section 33 or on a
reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
if no enquiry has been held as required by Standing
Orders, the entire case would be open before the
Tribunal and the employer would have to justify on
facts as well that its order of dismissal or discharge
was proper. Phulbari Tea Estate case [AIR 1959 SC
1111 : (1960) 1 SCR 32] , was on a reference under
Section 10, and the same principle was applied there
also, the only difference being that in that case there
was an enquiry though it was defective. A defective
enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing as
no enquiry and in either case the Tribunal would have
jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would
have to satisfy the Tribunal that on facts the order of
dismissal or discharge was proper."
The employer, thus, has got a right to adduce evidence before the
Tribunal justifying its action, even where no domestic inquiry
whatsoever has been held.
11. Yet again in Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of
India (P) Ltd. [(1973) 1 SCC 813 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 341 : (1973) 3
SCR 587] this Court while interpreting the provision of Section 11-
A of the Act held that in terms thereof, the management need not
necessarily rely on the materials on record as while introducing
Section 11-A of the Act, the legislature must have been aware of the
decisions of this Court which are operating in the field for a long
time. This Court enunciated several principles bearing on the subject
and, therefore, it held that it was difficult to accept that the
expression "materials on record", used in the proviso to Section 11-
A was set at naught. The Court formulated the propositions of law
emerging from the decisions rendered by this Court, the relevant
portions whereof are as under: (SCC pp. 827-28, para 32)
"32. From those decisions, the following principles
broadly emerge:
(1)-(3)***
(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or
if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the
Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality and
validity of the order, has to give an opportunity to the
employer and employee to adduce evidence before it.
It is open to the employer to adduce evidence for the
first time justifying his action, and it is open to the
employee to adduce evidence contra.
(5)***
(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the
evidence placed before it for the first time in
justification of the action taken only if no enquiry has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
been held or after the enquiry conducted by an
employer is found to be defective.
(7) It has never been recognised that the Tribunal
should straight away, without anything more, direct
reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee,
once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held
or the said enquiry is found to be defective.
(8)***"
Even in Firestone case [(1973) 1 SCC 813 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 341 :
(1973) 3 SCR 587] no distinction, thus, has been made between a
defective inquiry and no inquiry.
(Emphasis supplied)
10. The Labour Court ultimately proceeded to pass award dated
01.06.2016 in respect of 11 workmen by holding that the management
failed to lead any evidence to prove the alleged misconduct against the
workmen and therefore, the Labour Court proceeded to allow the
reference proceedings and passed an award directing reinstatement in
favour of the workmen but since all the workmen had already attained
the age of superannuation as the award was passed in the year 2016
whereas the matter related to the year 1986, therefore, the Labour Court
directed that they would be entitled to 50% back-wages from the date
of termination of services till the date of completion of age of
superannuation.
11. The management in the case of present workman Shivratan also
did not lead any evidence on the merits of misconduct and his case was
on similar footing with all other employees because all the 13
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
employees had been alleged to have "gone slow" in the work and this
was the allegation against all the 13 employees. In the absence
of management leading any evidence, the workman was not expected
to lead any evidence and moreso, the workman had expired and his
legal representatives were prosecuting the case and if the management
had led any evidence to prove the misconduct, then only the question
of rebuttal of such evidence would have come into picture.
12. Therefore, the impugned award of the Labour Court in rejecting
the proceedings in respect of workman Shivratan are utterly illegal and
contrary to settled position of law. The Labour Court has denied the
rightful dues that the legal representatives of the workman would have
got after 30 years of legal battle since 1986 and now further 10 years
have been lost in prosecuting this petition before this Court, making it
a total of 40 years to get justice.
13. Therefore, the legal representatives of workman Shivratan are also
held entitled to 50% of wages from the date of termination till the date
of death of workman Shivratan by holding his termination of services
to be illegal.
14. The legal representatives of workman Shivratan shall also be
entitled to simple interest @6% per annum on the aforesaid amount
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026: MPHC-JBP:17566
from the date of death of workman till the date of actual payment.
15. In the above terms, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
