Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1963 (2) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... actice of this Court to enter into evidence with a view to finding facts for itself. Following this well settled practice we see no reason to interfere with the conclusion of the Tribunal. - Civil Appeal No. 359 of 1962. - - - Dated:- 22-2-1963 - HIDAYATULLAH, M., GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. AND SHAH, J.C., JJ. For the Appellant: B. Sen, S.C. Mazumdar, D. N. Mukherjee for B. N. Ghosh, For the Respondent :Janardhan Sharma, JUDGMENT: HIDAYATULLAH J.- By this appeal filed with the special leave of this Court, by the Meenglas Tea 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 Wes .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... kers Union, Malbazar, District jalpaiguri. On January 18, 1956, there was an ugly incident in which a group of workmen assaulted the Manager, Mr. Marshall and his two Assistant Managers Mr. Nichols and Mr. Dhawan. This happened one morning in a section of the tea gardens where about two hundred workmen had surrounded Mr. Nichols and were making a violent demonstration. First Mr. Dhawan and soon after Mr. 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 cage was started against some of the rioters but we are not concerned with it. The Company also started proceedings against some workmen. It first issued a notice of suspensio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e charge before the workman was, questioned. 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 support 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 requirements 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 again .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an error 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 caution and did not act upon uncorroborated testimony. It is possible, that the evidence against some of the persons to whom the benefit has gone, might be cogent enough for acceptance, 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 recollection. On the whole, it cannot be said that the Tribunal adopted an approach which made it impo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 workmen. 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 Trib .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates