Some Important Case Laws on Dismissal of a Workmen or Termination of an Employee

Dismissal of a Workmen or Termination of an Employee

1.       Mohan Singh vs Jaipur Metals And Electricals [1997 (75) FLR 771, (1996) IILLJ 551 Raj]

Refusal by a driver to work on weekly off days, on emergent duty will justify dismissal.

2.       Workmen Of Messrs Firestone Tyre vs Management & Others [1973 AIR 1227, 1973 SCR (3) 587]

The International Labour Organisation, in its recommendation concerning termination of. employment at the initiative of the employer adopted in June 1963, has recommended that a worker aggrieved by the termination of his employment should be entitled, to appeal against the termination among others, to a neutral body such as an arbitrator, a court, an arbitration committee or a similar body and that the neutral body concerned should be empowered to examine the reasons given in the termination of employment and the other circumstances relating to the case, and to render a decision on the justification of the termination.

It is now obligatory on an employer to hold a proper domestic enquiry in which all material evidence will have to be adduced. When a dispute is referred for adjudication and it is found that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is defective, or if it is found that no domestic enquiry at all had been conducted, the order of discharge or termination passed by the employer becomes, without anything more, Unjustified and the Labour Tribunals have no option but to direct the reinstatement of the workmen concerned, as his discharge or dismissal is illegal.

Even in cases where a domestic enquiry has been held and finding of misconduct recorded, the Labour Tribunals have now full power and jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and to satisfy themselves whether the evidence, justifies the finding of misconduct. Even if the enquiry proceedings are held to be proper and the finding of misconduct is also accepted, the Tribunal has now power to consider whether the punishment of dismissal or discharge was necessary for the, type of misconduct of which the workman is found guilty. In such circumstances, the Tribunal can also give any other relief to the workman, including the imposing of a lesser punishment. In cases where an employer had not conducted any enquiry or when the enquiry conducted by him is held to 'be defective, the employer will not be given any opportunity to adduce evidence before the Labour Tribunal for justifying his action.

3.       The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Private Limited v. The Management [1973-I-LLJ-278]

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.

Before imposing the punishment an employer is expected to conduct a proper en-quiry in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if applicable, and principles of natural justice. The enquiry should not be an empty formality.

When a proper enquiry has been held by an employer, and the finding of misconduct is 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 interference with the decision of the employer will be justified only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse and the management is guilty of vicitmisation, unfair labour practice or mala fide.

Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the enquiry held by him is found to be detective, 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.

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.

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.

It has never been recognised that the Tribunal should straightaway without anything more, direct, reinstatement of the dismissed or discharged employee, once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the said enquiry is found to be defective.

It has never been recognised that the Tribunal should straightaway without anything more, direct, reinstatement of the dismissed or discharged employee, once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been held or the said enquiry is found to be defective.

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.