Holding

An industrial tribunal must be very slow in substituting its opinion for that of the domestic tribunal, and an acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action, as the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is pre‑ponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The workman, a senior dumper operator at West Bokaro Colliery of M/s TISCO Ltd., was charged with leaving work without permission and exhibiting indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour after assaulting a security officer. A domestic inquiry found the charges proved beyond reasonable doubt and recommended dismissal, which was effected. The Labour Court, however, set aside the dismissal, reinstating the workman with 50% back wages, relying on his acquittal in a criminal case and holding that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Management appealed, and the Supreme Court held that an industrial tribunal must be very reluctant to substitute its opinion for that of the domestic tribunal when two views of the evidence are possible, and that an acquittal in criminal proceedings does not bar disciplinary action, as the standard of proof differs. Consequently, the Court set aside the Labour Court’s order and restored the domestic tribunal’s dismissal.

Issues considered

Whether an industrial tribunal can overturn the findings of a domestic inquiry and order of dismissal when two interpretations of the evidence are possible.
Whether an acquittal in a criminal case bars subsequent disciplinary proceedings against the same employee.
What standard of proof applies in disciplinary (departmental) proceedings as opposed to criminal trials.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10(1)(d), s. 11A

Subjects

disciplinary proceedingsdomestic inquiryindustrial tribunalstandard of proofacquittallabour lawdismissalnatural justice

Judgment

'

t [2008] 2 S.C.R. 247
. ___,.,,.
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF A
WEST BOKARO COLLIERY OF M/S. T-ISCO LTD.
v.
THE CONCERNED WORKMAN, RAM PRAVESH SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 892 of 2008)
B
FEBRUARY 1, 2008
~ (ASHOK BHAN AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.)

Labour Law:
Disciplinary proceedings - Initiated against delinquent c
workman - For indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour -
Dismissal from service as a result of domestic inquiry- Labour
Court holding the domestic inquiry as fair and proper - But,
relying on acquittal of workman in criminal case, setting aside
order of dismissal and directing his reinstatement holding that D
Management failed to substantiate charges beyond
"'-. reasonable doubt - HELD: Where two views are possible on
the evidence on record, Industrial Tribunal should be very slow
in substituting its opinion and conclusion for those of the
domestic tribunal - Standard of proof in criminal case and in B
departmental proceedings is different - Acquittal in criminal
case would.not operate as bar in drawing up disciplinary
.., proceedings against the delinquent - Order of Labour Court
set aside and that of disciplinary authority restored.
A
. The respondent-workman was dismissed from F
service as charges of leaving the work without permission
and indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour with a
superior as well as a coworker, leveled against him were
found to have been established in the domestic inquiry.

,., -. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry G
conducted by the Management was fair, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice. However,
relying upon the order of acquittal of the workman in the
criminal case, the Labour Court set aside the order of
247 ·: H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
l-
A dismissal and. ordered his reinstatement with 50% back
·wages holding that the Management had failed to
substantiate the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The
Management having remained unsuccessful in the writ
petition and the consequent Letters Patent Appeal, filed
B the instant appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In a case where two views are possible
on the evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal should
c be very slow in substituting its opinion for that of the
domestic tribunal and coming to a different conclusion.
[para 20] [255-F, G]
Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) vs. A. T. Mane
(2005) 3 SCC 254; U.P State Road Transport Corporation
D vs. Vinod Kumar 2007 (13) SCALE 690 - relied on.
The Workmen of Mis. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of
India (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management & Ors. [(1973) 1 SCC
813] and South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union vs.
E Kera/a State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) ·
5 sec 201 - cited.
1.2 It has repeatedly been held by this Court that the
acquittal in a criminal case would not operate as a bar for
drawing up of disciplinary proceedings against a
F delinquent. It is well settled principle of law that yardstick
and standard of proof in a criminal case is different from
the one in disciplinary proceedings. While the standard
of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond all reasonable
doubt, the standard of proof in departmental proceedings
G is preponderance of probabilities. [para 19] [255-B, C, D]
1.3 In the instant case, the Labour Court has set aside
the report of the Enquiry Offic:er and the order of dismissal
passed by the Punishing Authority by observing· that the
charges against the respondent were not proved beyond
H reasonable doubt and interfered wifh the findings
EMP IN REL. TO THE MGMT OF W.B.C. OF M/S. TISCO 249
LTD. v. THE CONCERNED WORKMAN

recorded by the domestic Tribunal as if it was the appellate A
tribunal. There was evidence present on record regarding
i
indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour of the
respondent towards his superiors. The witnesses who
were present at the scene of occurrence have
unequivocally deposed about the misbehaviour of the 8
respondent towards his superiors. Their evidence has
been discarded by the Tribunal by observing that in the
absence of independent evidence, the statements of the
workmen who were present at the scene of occurrence
could not be believed. The Labour Court fell in error in G
discarding the evidence produced by the Management
only because the independent witnesses were not
produced .. Statements of the fellow workmen had
established the misconduct of the respondent. The
Enquiry Officer accepted the testimony of the witnesses D
produced by the Management who had clearly implicated
the respondent. It was a legitimate conclusion which could
be arrived at and it would not be open to the Labour Court
to substitute the said opinion by its own opinion.
[para 17] (254-A-F]
E
1.4 The Labour Court fell into factual as well as legal
error in setting aside the findings recorded by the
domestic Tribunal. The Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench of the High Court have simply affirmed
the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Orders passed F
by the High Court as well as the Labour Court are set aside
and those of the domestic tribunal and the punishing
authority are restored. [para 21, 22] (255-G; 256-A]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 892
of 2008. G

From the final Judgment/Order dated 15.6.2006 of the High
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LP.A. No. 389/2004.

Raju Ramachandran, M.K. Dua for the Appellant.
H
+- )c

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

~
A Sunil Kumar, Amitesh Chandra Mishra and Alok Kumar
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. Management is in appeal.
3. The respondent-workman was working as Senior
,,
~

Dumper Operator under the Management of the appellant. The
workman was deputed ·at Open Caste Mine, West Bokaro on
c 2nd of March, 1994 during the first shift from 5.00 a.m. to 1.00
p.m. Respondent left the place of his duty before the end of his
shift duty and went to Rajiv Nagar area where Shri Harbans
Kumar, Senior Officer (Security), along with a number of security
personnel and other workers, was discharging his duties in
connection with prevention of unauthorized constructions on the ,-
D I
company's land. The respondent-workman along with few others t

approached Shri Harbans Kumar and shouted at him using
..~
abusive language and threatened him with dire consequences
in case the unauthorized construction was demolished. The
respondent-workman, on being asked not to behave in the said ~
E manner, assaulted Shri Harbans Kumar with his hands and also
resorted to brick-bating as a result of which Shri Harbans Kumar
and Shri S.P. Yadav sustained injuries on the face and other
parts of the body.

F 4. Appellant-Management issued a charge sheet to the .).._
~
respondent-workman whereby he was asked to show-cause as
to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under
Clause 22(18) and 22(5) of the Standing Orders of the Company
r,.
for the following misconduct: -
...-
j

G "(a) leaving work without permission
)-
(b) indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour with a
superior as well as co-worker."
5. The respondent-workman submitted his reply denying
H all charges brought against him. The Management decided to
EMP. IN REL. TO THE MGMT. OF W.B.C. OF M/S. TISCO 251
LTD. v. THE CONCERNED WORKMAN [BHAN, J.]

conduct an enquiry and accordingly appointed Shri Madhusudan A
Das, Deputy Manager (Personnel) as Enquiry Officer. The
Enquiry Officer after giving full opportunity to the respondent-
workman came to the conclusion that the charges levelled
against him were established beyond reasonable doubt and
submitted his report. B
.,• 6. The Punishing Authority after going through the Enquiry .
Report and related enquiry papers, satisfied himself that ,
charges levelled against the respondent had been established
and recommended the dismissal of the respondent from the
Company with immediate effect. The workman was accordingly c
'

dismissed on 23/25th of April, 1994.
7. The respondent raised an industrial dispute and the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of its powers
under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for
D
short 'the Act'), referred the following dispute to the Tribunal for

-- adjudication:
"THE SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the Management of West
Bokaro Collieries of M/s. TISCO Ltd. PO-Ghatotand, Dist. E
Hazaribagh in dismissing Shri Ram Pravesh, Ex. Sr.
Dumper Operator from the services of the Company w.e.f
25.4.1994 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?"
~
F
8. The respondent on 3rd of October, 2003, made a
statement before the Labour Court that he did not want to
challenge the legality, fairness and propriety of the domestic
enquiry. On this statement being made, the Labour Court, after
careful consideration of the facts and circumstances and the
G
submissions advanced by the Counsel for the respondent, held
that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was
fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. The matter was adjourned to 14th of December, 2001
for hearing argument on merit.
H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A 9. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal
passed against the respondent by holding that the Management
had failed to substantiate the charges brought against the
concerned workman beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly,
order of dismissal passed against the concerned workman was
B set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated with 50% back
wages.
10. Management, thereafter, filed the Writ Petition before
the High Court which was dismissed by the Learned Single
Judge, aggrieved against which Management filed Letters
C Patent Appeal which has also been dismissed by the impugned
order.
11. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Raju Ramachandran,
appearing for the Management submitted that the findings
recorded by the domestic Tribunal based on the evidence cannot
0
be set aside or interfered with by the Industrial Tribunal or the
Courts by substituting their substantive opinion in place of the
one arrived at by the domestic Tribunal. It is further contended
that the Tribunal applied the standard of proof of beyond
E reasonable doubt which is required to be proved in criminal
cases whereas in the domestic enquiry and Civil Courts, the
standard of proof is of preponderance of probabilities. It is
further contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the
0rder of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent by the
Criminal Court as in the criminal cases, the standard of proof
F required to prove a charge is materially different than in civil
matters.
12. As against this, Learned Counsel for the respondent
contended that the Industrial Tribunal was fully justified in coming
G to the different conclusions in exercise of its powers under
Section 11 A of the Act.
13. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
14. The Tribunal in its order on re-appreciation of evidence
ccame to the conclusion that in the absence of any independent
H
-l
EMP. IN REL. TO THE MGMT OF W.B.C. OF MIS. TISCO 253'
LTD. v. THE CONCERNED WORKMAN [BHAN, J.]
~"'t.
evidence other than of fellow workman, the charge of indecent, A
riotous and disorderly behaviour with superior and co-worker
was not proved. Insofar as the absence from the duty is
concerned, Tribunal came to the conclusion that according to
the workman, he had left the place of work at 12.25 P.M. and as
the incident allegedly had taken place at 12.30 P.M., the B
respondent could not have reached the place of incident at 12 .30
.., P.M. after collecting his other associates. In para 14 of its order,
"' the Tribunal concluded that Management had failed to
substantiate the charges brought against the workman beyond
reasonable doubt. c
15. This Court in Divisional Controller, KSRTC
(NWKRTC) vs. A. T Mane [(2005) 3 SCC 254], held that: -
"From the above it is clear that once a dome.stic tribunal
based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion,
D
normally it is not open to the appellate tribunals and courts
to substitute their subjective opinion in the place of the
~
one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. In the present
case, there is evidence of the inspector who checked the
bus which establishes the misconduct of the respondent.
The domestic tribunal accepted that evidence and found E
the respondent guilty. But the courts below misdirected
themselves in insisting on the evidence of the ticketless
passengers to reject the said finding which, in our
opinion, as held by this Court in the case of Rattan
~ Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491] is not a condition precedent. F
We may herein note that the judgment of this Court in
Rattan Singh has since been followed by this Court in
Devendra Swamy vs. Karnataka SRTC [(2002) 9 SCC
644]"
G
16. In UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vinod
Kumar [2007 (13) SCALE 690], this Court again observed that
in the absence of a challenge to the legality or fairness of the
domestic enquiry, the Court should be reluctant to either interfere
with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the punishment
H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A awarded by the Punishing Authority.
17. After going through the order of the Industrial Tribunal,
we· are of the opinion that the Tribunal has interfered with the
findings recorded by the domestic Tribunal as if it was the
Appellate Tribunal. There was evidence present on record
8 regarding indecent, riotous and disorderly behaviour of the
respondent towards his superiors. The Management witnesses
who were present at the scene of occurrence have unequivocally
deposed about the misbehaviour of the respondent towards his
superiors. Their evidence has been discarded by the Tribunal
C by observing that in the absence of independent evidence, the
statements of the Workmen who were present at the scene of
occurrence could not be believed. Industrial Tribunal fell in error
in discarding the evidence produced by the Management only
because the independent witnesses were not produced. It is
D nobody's case that the independent witnesses were available
at the scene of occurrence and the Management had failed to
produce them. It is possible that at the time of occurrence, only
tne workers of the Management and the persons who were trying
to put up the construction unauthorizedly were the persons
E present and no independent evidence was available.
Statements of the fellow workmen had established the
misconduct of the respondent. Enquiry Officer accepted the
testimony of the witnesses produced by the Management who
had clearly implicated the respondent. It was a legitimate
F conclusion which could be arrived at and it would not be open
to the Industrial Tribunal to substitute the said opinion by its own
opinion.
18. Findings recorded by the Tribunal that the workman
had left the place of duty at 12.25 P.M. and, therefore, could not
G have reached the place of occurrence at 12.30 P.M. after
collecting his other associates, is not based on any evidence.
The case of the Management is that the respondent had left his
place of duty at 12.05 P.M. and reached the place of occurrence
at 12.30 P.M. after collecting his fellow workmen. There was
H sufficient time for the workman to reach the place of occurrence
* EMP. IN REL. TO THE MGMT. OF W.B.C. OF M/S. TISCO
LTD. v. THE CONCERNED WORKMAN [BHAN, J.]
255

~-"t
within half an hour as the distance between the place of duty A
and the place of occurrence was only 1 k.m. The duty of the
respondent-workman was upto 1.00 O'clock. Even if, it is
accepted that he left the place of duty at 12.25 P.M., then also,
he left the place of duty during his duty hours.
19. Tribunal has set aside the report of the Enquiry Officer B
and the order of dismissal passed by the Punishing Authority
.....
.;..,
by observing that the charges against the respondent were not
proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has repeatedly been held
by this Court that the acquittal in a criminal case would not
operate as a bar for drawing up of a disciplinary proceeding c
against a delinquent. It is well settled principle of law that
yardstick and standard of proof in a criminal case is different
from the one in disciplinary proceedings. While the standard of
proof in a criminal case is proof beyond all reasonable doubt,
the standard of proof in a departmental proceeding is D
preponderance of probabilities.
20. Learned Counsel for the respondent cited two cases
- The Workmen of Mis. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India
(Pvt.) Ltd. vs. The Management & Ors. [(1973) 1 SCC 813]
and South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union vs. Kera/a E
State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 5 SCC
201 ], to contend that the Labour Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 11A could have come to a different
conclusion. There is no quarrel with this proposition of law.
....\ The Labour Court could have awarded lesser punishment in F
the given facts and circumstances of the case. In a case where
two views are possible on the evidence on record, then the
Industrial Tribunal should be very slow in <.;Oming to a
conclusion other than the one arrived at by the domestic
Tribunal by substituting its opinion in place of the opinion of G
-t_• the dome·stic Tribunal.
21. Labour Court fell into the factual as well as legal error
in setting aside the findings recorded by the domestic Tribunal.
Learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have simply
H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A affirmed the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
22. For the reasons stated above, we accept this appeal,
set aside the order passed by the High Court as well as the
Labour Court. Accordingly. the Order passed by the domestic
Tribunal and the Punishing Authority is restored. There should
8 be no orders as to costs.
RP. Appeal allowed.

,.
;