Employer has right to adduce evidence even after faulty internal investigation: MP HC

Background

The petitioner, a Member of Parliament of the Rashtriya Manganese Mazdoor Sangh, challenged the decision of the CGIT which upheld the dismissal of an employee from Manganese Ore Ltd. The worker was fired in 1997 for unauthorized absence, because he did not show up at the place where he was transferred. The petitioner said the CGIT distorted the investigation against the employee for procedural reasons in 2015, but later allowed the employer to present evidence to establish alleged misconduct. They challenged it in court.

Arguments

The applicant argued that the CGIT’s decision to allow the employer to provide evidence (particularly after it had withdrawn the original request) was wrongful. The applicant contended that the defective charge sheet renders the entire investigation null and void. They argued that this would require reinstatement of the employee. In addition, they noted that the employer’s written statement had never specifically sought permission to adduce evidence, and therefore they were barred from doing so now.

The defendant responded by relying on Workmen v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co . of India (P) Ltd. ((1973) 1 SCC 813)to argue that even if an internal investigation is invalid, the employer retains the right to present evidence in court. It was submitted that the CGIT had properly exercised its discretion in allowing this. The defendant emphasized that the employee declined offers of re-employment and also subsequently registered as a solicitor. This, they argued, indicates his deliberate absence.

Reasoning of the court

The court cited Workmen v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co . of India (P) Ltd.which allows employers to take evidence to court even if an internal investigation is found to be flawed. Consequently, the court ruled that the court must allow both the employer and the employee to present evidence to determine the legality and validity of the dismissal order. Explaining the reasoning, the court noted that the labor court should decide the labor dispute, not just the validity of a particular dismissal/termination.

The court also considered the plaintiff’s claim that reinstatement was mandatory after the internal investigation was invalidated. relying on Motipur Sugar Factory v. Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 1803)the court explained that the tribunal has a combined role. Its mandate includes evaluating not only the procedural validity of the dismissal, but also the substantive merits of allegations of misconduct. He concluded that the CGIT was justified in allowing the party to present its case with new evidence.

Moreover, the court rejected the argument that the defendant did not apply at the first opportunity for permission to present evidence. Instead, he noted that the defendant’s written statement clearly contained a request for permission. The court then justified the CGIT’s initial reluctance to allow it and its subsequent approval as a valid exercise of judicial discretion.

The court also considered the employee’s personal circumstances and professional conduct after dismissal. He recognized the employee’s refusal of re-employment and his decision to pursue a legal career. He therefore concluded that the plaintiff’s continued absence, despite the availability of opportunities at the transferred location, constituted willful misconduct. Thus, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the CGIT.

Decided: 02-12-2024

Case number: WP No. 17024/2020, MP Rashtriya Manganese Mazdoor Sangh v. Manganese Ore (India) Ltd .

The plaintiff’s lawyer: Mr. Rajneesh Gupta

Defendant’s lawyer: Mr. Anup Nair, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shreyas Dhabi and Ms. Gunjan Naik

Click here to read/download the order