Power of Labour Court to interfere with decision in domestic inquiry:
The Labour Court can interfere with an order of dismissal if it finds that the order of dismissal:
(i) Was actuated by any mala fides; or
(ii) Was actuated by victimisation; or
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(iii) Was an act of unfair labour practice, (Caltex India) Ltd. v. E. Fernandes, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 326: (1957) 1 Lab. L.J. 1; Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 130: 1958 S.C.R. 667).
It can also interfere if the enquiry held by the management is not proper or fair that is if the principles of natural justice are not observed.
If any of those grounds are established, the Labour Court would be justified in ignoring the domestic enquiry and to examine the matter itself and come to the conclusion whether there is any justification for the order of dismissal. For this purpose, it can entertain evidence from the parties and decide on the balance of it,
Image Source: dunnesworkers.files.wordpress.com/
ADVERTISEMENTS:
But if no such ground is established, then it is no business of the Labour Court:
(i) To review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion on the various factual facets of the involved questions, or
(ii) To conclude that the findings of the domestic enquiry are erroneous.
It can interfere with the findings of the domestic enquiry only if those findings:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(i) Are based on no evidence at all; or
(ii) Are perverse.
From this point of view, it will not be within the competence of the labour Court to enquire whether:
(a) A particular witness has been rightly believed or not, or
(b) A particular finding is supported by sufficient evidence.
It cannot interfere with the conclusions of facts recorded in the domestic enquiry, however erroneous those conclusions may appear to be to the Labour Court on the following or similar grounds:
(i) The evidence may be unsatisfactory;
(ii) The decision may appear doubtful because the appreciation and analysis of the evidence is not proper;
(iii) The process of reasoning in arriving at a conclusion of a question of fact may, on investigation or examination, appear unappealing,
An authority having power to hear an appeal on facts alone can interfere. These grounds do not make the decision perverse.
A decision can be condemned as perverse if it is:
(i) Impelled by arbitrariness or prejudice; or
(ii) Such that to a judicial mind it appears that no rational or reasonable person could demonstrably reach that conclusion.
Perversity in a recorded finding is a matter of objective determination. If a tribunal holds a finding perverse, the High Court can, on being approached under Article 226 of the Constitution, examine the matter.
If it is found that the concept of perversity has been misapprehended and misapplied, the decision will betray a manifest error on the face of the record and will be liable to be set aside.