THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE NOT CONFINED TO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ONLY BUT EXTEND TO EFFECTIVE HEARING

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

In any litigation each party should be given reasonable opportunity of being heard which is according to the principles of Natural Justice. A case which has been decided against the principles of Natural justice is liable to be quashed in the appellate forum. But providing mere opportunity of being heard is not enough but the hearing should be an effective one. This is the requirement in observing the principles of Natural justice.

In ‘State Bank of India V. The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association’ – 2000 (4) TMI 796 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court held that the requirements of the principles of natural justice which are required to be observed are:

• Workman should know the nature of the complaint or accusation;
• An opportunity to state his case;
• The management should act in good faith which means that the action of the management should be fair, reasonable and just.

The Supreme Court in ‘Indian Iron & Steel Co. Limited V. The Workmen’ – 1957 (10) TMI 21 - SUPREME COURT held that though the management of a concern has power to direct its own internal administration and discipline but the power is not limited and when a dispute arises, the Industrial Adjudicator has the power to see whether the termination of service of a workmen is justified.   It was further held that though in cases of dismissal on misconduct the Industrial Adjudicator is not to act as a Court of Appeal and substitute its own judgment for that of the management but the Industrial Adjudicator will interfere:

• When there is want of good faith;
• When there is victimization or unfair labour practice;’
• When the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of principle of natural justice; and
• When on the material on record the finding is completely baseless or perverse.

In ‘Delhi Transport Corporation V. Shyam Singh’ – 2012 (10) TMI 410 - DELHI HIGH COURT the respondent workman was appointed as a conduct with the appellant.   He was served with a charge sheet for not issuing tickets to the passengers in spite of collecting the fare. Departmental enquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer found that the workman was guilty of the charge.   The Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service on the workman.

The workman raised and industrial dispute. The Industrial Adjudicator passed an award directing the reinstatement of the workman and for making payment of full back wages. The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court set aside the award and remanded the matter to decide afresh. 

In remand proceedings the Industrial Adjudicator framed the following issues:

• Whether the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice/
• As per the terms of reference i.e., whether the removal of Sh. Shyam Singh from service is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this regard?

The Industrial Adjudicator held that the respondent workman had been given proper opportunity and the departmental inquiry was in compliance with the principles of natural justice, the Inquiry Officer had not given cogent reasons for disbelieving the testimony of the witness and that in the absence of cash having been checked, the charges against the workman could not have been held by the Inquiry Officer to have been proved.  It was also held that no presenting officer was appointed by the appellant. Consequently the findings of the Departmental inquiry were held to be perverse for the reasons that-

(a)  The passengers having not supported the case of the checking staff in the inquiry;

(b)  Cash having not been checked by the checking staff;

(c)  There being no presenting officer appointed by the management.

Accordingly the issue was decided in favour of the workman.  It further held that the appellant failed to prove the misconduct with which the workman was charged.  Therefore the order of removal was held to be unjustified and the respondent was entitled to reinstatement. The Industrial Adjudicator did not find the back wages of the workman.

Before the High Court the appellant contended that the Industrial Adjudicator having held that the departmental enquiry to have been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice could not have further held the findings of the departmental inquiry to be perverse. The Industrial Adjudicator ought to have upheld the order of the Disciplinary Authority of removal of the respondent workman from service; the occasion for the appellant proving misconduct before the Industrial Adjudicator would not have arisen then. taxmanagementindia.com

The High Court did not accept the contentions of the appellant. The Industrial Adjudicator has given three reasons holding the departmental inquiry to be bad. Merely because sufficient opportunity of hearing had been given to the workman alone is not sufficient for upholding the departmental inquiry. The High Court held that the principles of natural justice which are required to be observed are not confined to opportunity of hearing alone, giving of opportunity of hearing alone cannot bar the Industrial Adjudicator from interfering with the disciplinary action of the management. In spite of giving appropriate opportunity of hearing the action of the management is found to be arbitrary and unreasonable, it would qualify as perverse. The High Court also relied on the supreme Court judgements. In ‘M.V. Bijlani V. Union of India’ 2006 (4) TMI 455 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court held that the findings of the departmental inquiry to be interferable if there is no evidence to prove the charge or where the relevant facts have not been considered. 

The High Court held that it cannot be said that the Industrial Adjudicator went beyond its jurisdiction in going into the question of perversity of the findings on the basis of which removal order was passed.