Labour Court Can't Re-Appreciate Evidence After Upholding Domestic Enquiry: Delhi High Court Restores Termination Of MTNL Workman

The Delhi High Court has held that once a Labour Court upholds the fairness and validity of a domestic enquiry, it cannot thereafter re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority to substitute the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

Justice Shail Jain held,

“Once a domestic inquiry is held to be fair and in compliance with the principles of natural justice, the Labour Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Interference is permissible only where the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or are such that no reasonable person could have arrived at.”

The bench thus allowed the writ petition filed by Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) against Labour Court's order directing reinstatement of a workman terminated pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry which found him guilty of misconduct.

It held that the Labour Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, despite having recorded a categorical finding that the domestic enquiry was fair, proper and in accordance with principles of natural justice.

For context, while adjudicating the industrial dispute, the Labour Court first upheld the enquiry as fair and valid. However, it went on to re-appreciate the evidence on merits, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and ordered reinstatement.

Disapproving this approach, the High Court cited Standard Chartered Bank v. R.C. Srivastava, (2021) where the Supreme Court held that domestic enquiry is to be tested on the principles of preponderance of probabilities and if a piece of evidence is on record which could support the charge which has been levelled against the delinquent unless it is per se unsustainable or perverse, ordinarily is not to be interfered by the Tribunal, more so when the domestic enquiry has been held to be fair and proper.

As such, the Court held that the interference by the Labour Court cannot be sustained within the limited parameters governing judicial review in disciplinary matters.

“Labour Court, despite having upheld the fairness of the domestic inquiry, exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act by reappreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions for those of the Inquiry Officer. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were based on material forming part of the inquiry record and cannot be characterised as perverse or based on no evidence,' the Court said and restored the order of termination.

Appearance: Mr. Chandan Sharma and Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Chirayu Jain, Mr. Raksha Awasya and Ms. Tanishqua Dhar, Advs. for Respondent

Case title: MTNL v. Shri Ram Ratan

Case no.: W.P.(C) 1630/2006

Click here to read order