GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, the Management of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., Trivandrum, and the respondents its workmen through their Union. The dispute in question was in regard to the dismissal of one of the employees of the appellant, Mr. N. Ramaswamy Pillai, who was a Store Keeper at Trivandrum. The respondent urged that the dismissal of Pillai was unjustified and he was entitled to reinstatement. The appellant contended that the dismissal was justified and the workman concerned was entitled to no relief. The Tribunal has upheld the plea raised by the respondent and has directed the appellant to reinstate Pillai in its employment and to pay him his back wages in full from the date of his dismissal until the date of his reinstatement. It is the correctness and propriety of this award that is challenged before us by Mr. Pai on behalf of the appellant. It is common ground that Pillai was, at the relevant time, the Store Keeper in-charge of stores in the appellant concern. In the course of his duties, he had to despatch raw materials to the Processing Plant where the product of Titanium Dioxide is manufactured. The material supplied in this case in respect of which the workman Pillai was charged is Glue. This material is required for the processing of Titanium Dioxide.
(2.) ON the 15th September, 1961, Pillai was served with a memo, to explain certain discrepancies found in the issue of stores of glue in the month of July, 1961. An explanation was submitted by him on the 16th September, 1961. Later, on the 27th September, 1961, another memo was served on Pillai. This memo sought to correct the amount of glue mentioned in the first memo. On the 23rd September, 1961, yet another memo of charge was served on him, and he gave his explanation on the 26th September, 1961. The next day, he was served with a formal charge-sheet stating that an enquiry would be conducted against him on the 30th September, 1961; the same day he was placed under suspension. An enquiry was then conducted on the 30th September, 1961, and as a result of the enquiry, he was dismissed from service on the 5th October, 1961.These charges were framed against Pillai. The first was that in the Raw Material Stores Requisition Particulars given below, the third copies retained in the Requisition Book showed the quantity of glue supplied by him as a bag of 93 1bs, but it was noted that he had altered the figure '1' to '2' Bags of 186 1bs in the 1st and 2nd copies thereof, by over-writing thereby showing a false issue of 1 extra bag to 93 1bs of glue without actually issuing it to the Requisition Section of the Plant. Then followed a reference to several entries made by Pillai in the Requisition Book. After they were set out, certain entries in the Requisition Book which showed suspicious over-writing were mentioned, the result of which was to change '1' bag of glue into '2'; this was charge No. 2. The third charge was in relation to requisition No. 7339 issued on the 3rd August, 1961 by Mr. R. V. George, and had alleged that Pillai had interpolated an entry in the said Requisition relating to 1 bag of glue without actually issuing the material. The substance of the charges was that Pillai had falsely manipulated the Stores Records knowing the alterations to be false and with deliberate intention of defrauding the company. The charge-sheet further stated that this conduct on the part of Pillai amounted to misconduct under Standing Order 20, sub-clause (4), of the standing orders for Staff. Before the Tribunal, the preliminary question which arose for decision was whether the domestic enquiry held against Pillai was fair or not. It is well-settled that if the domestic enquiry held against an industrial employee is fair, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be successfully challenged unless it is shown that the said findings are perverse in the sense that they are not based on any evidence at all. If, on the other hand, the enquiry is held to be unfair, the said findings do not justify the order of dismissal; and it would be open to the employer to justify the dismissal by leading evidence before the Tribunal. In the present case, the employer has adopted this alternative course; and as we shall presently point out, the Tribunal has dealt with the evidence led before it by the appellant, because it held that the enquiry was unfair and it had, therefore, to examine the merits of dismissal for itself.In regard to the validity of the enquiry, the Tribunal has found that four serious infirmities vitiated the enquiry. These infirmities were : (1) that the appellant did not give Pillai three clear days' notice of the intention of the management to conduct the enquiry; (2) it did not furnish Pillai with a copy of the report of the preliminary enquiry received by the management against the employee; (3) it did not serve Pillai with a list of the witnesses proposed to be examined at the enquiry; and (4) that it refused him the assistance of another member of staff of his own choice at the enquiry. According to the Tribunal, these four infirmities, in substance, contravened the requirements of Standing Order 20, and so, the enquiry was completely invalid.
(3.) MR . Pai for the appellant attempted to argue that the failure of the appellant to give three clear days' notice of the intended enquiry was more technical than substantial. According to Mr. Pai, Pillai had notice of two and half days and that, Mr. Pai suggests, should be taken to be substantial compliance with the requirement of the relevant standing order. We are not impressed by this argument. Since the standing order insists upon notice of three clear days being given to the workman, failure to comply with the standing order does introduce an infirmity in the proceedings.;