Can CGIT challenge the disciplinary proceedings or inquiry proceedings? If so, kindly provide the reference number or supporting documents for the same. I am dealing with a matter where CGIT has ruled against my organization, and we want to appeal in the high court. But on what grounds can we challenge the decision of the CGIT Court? Thank you in advance. Seniors, please advise me.
Regards,
Neha
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1Regards,
Neha
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sneha,
I think that it is very difficult to provide a concrete answer to your query based on your cryptic narration. Although an Industrial Tribunal is not a court, its powers are broader than those of a Civil Court concerning the matters referred for its decision. However, no Industrial Tribunal can exceed the scope of the issues referred to it. If any question of law is involved in the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, the aggrieved party can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think that it is very difficult to provide a concrete answer to your query based on your cryptic narration. Although an Industrial Tribunal is not a court, its powers are broader than those of a Civil Court concerning the matters referred for its decision. However, no Industrial Tribunal can exceed the scope of the issues referred to it. If any question of law is involved in the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, the aggrieved party can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Neha,
Unless we know the case and the verdict passed thereupon, it is difficult to say whether the order passed can be challenged or not. You can challenge the order on the grounds of your "terms" against which a judgment is passed. You need to arrange all such documents in support of your points, which have sanctity in the eyes of the law but are ignored by the IT.
In my suggestion, if you can share the case and order, our learned members of the forum can guide or suggest suitably. Mr. Umakanthan M, one of the senior-most counsels, rightly pointed out the flaw that remains in your posting. Is any advocate put forth for the case? If yes, what are his views on the matter? I hope you will be able to understand the view put forth by me.
Regards,
8093097934
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Unless we know the case and the verdict passed thereupon, it is difficult to say whether the order passed can be challenged or not. You can challenge the order on the grounds of your "terms" against which a judgment is passed. You need to arrange all such documents in support of your points, which have sanctity in the eyes of the law but are ignored by the IT.
In my suggestion, if you can share the case and order, our learned members of the forum can guide or suggest suitably. Mr. Umakanthan M, one of the senior-most counsels, rightly pointed out the flaw that remains in your posting. Is any advocate put forth for the case? If yes, what are his views on the matter? I hope you will be able to understand the view put forth by me.
Regards,
8093097934
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Courts (CGIT-cum-LCs) are set up under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of industrial disputes arising in Central Sphere. The CGIT-cum-LCs have been set up with the objective of maintaining peace and harmony in the industrial sector by quick and timely disposal of industrial disputes through adjudication so that industrial growth does not suffer on account of any widespread industrial unrest.
The Supreme Court has clearly held that after the introduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act with effect from 15.12.1971, the CGIT cum LC has the power of an Appellate Court and it can also re-appreciate the evidence and come to different conclusion if the situation so warrants. The earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and another v. Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130 was specifically held to be not holding the field in view of the introduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act came to be explained by the Supreme Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Management, [1973] 1 SCC 813 : 1973 I LLJ 278. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed as follows: “.. The words in the course of the adjudication proceeding, the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified clearly indicate that the Tribunal is now clothed with the power to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied on by an employer establishes the misconduct alleged against a workman. What was originally a plausible conclusion that could be drawn by an employer from the evidence, has now given place to a satisfaction being arrived at by the Tribunal that the finding of misconduct is correct. The limitations imposed on the powers of the Tribunal by the decision in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. case, can no longer be invoked by an employer. The Tribunal is now at liberty to consider not only whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct, but also to differ from the said finding if a proper case is made out. What was once largely in the realm of the satisfaction of the employer, has ceased to be so, and now it is the satisfaction of the Tribunal that finally decides the matter.
To come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to re-appraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately it may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge.
…..
In other words, the Tribunal may hold that the proved misconduct does not merit punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. It can, under such circumstances, award to the workman only lesser punishment instead. The power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same has been now conferred on the Tribunal by Section 11-A.”
From the above it is very clear that the CGIT has been bestowed extensive powers in interfering with the decision of the employer in disciplinary and other service matters and the remedy against its decision lies before the High Court under its extra Ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under 227 of our Constitution. To invoke Article 226 there has to be substantial irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal causing grave prejudice to you and in proceeding as per Article 227 issues like factual error, legal error or inadequate appreciation of evidence could be tried.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Supreme Court has clearly held that after the introduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act with effect from 15.12.1971, the CGIT cum LC has the power of an Appellate Court and it can also re-appreciate the evidence and come to different conclusion if the situation so warrants. The earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and another v. Workmen, AIR 1958 SC 130 was specifically held to be not holding the field in view of the introduction of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The scope of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act came to be explained by the Supreme Court in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Management, [1973] 1 SCC 813 : 1973 I LLJ 278. The Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed as follows: “.. The words in the course of the adjudication proceeding, the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified clearly indicate that the Tribunal is now clothed with the power to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied on by an employer establishes the misconduct alleged against a workman. What was originally a plausible conclusion that could be drawn by an employer from the evidence, has now given place to a satisfaction being arrived at by the Tribunal that the finding of misconduct is correct. The limitations imposed on the powers of the Tribunal by the decision in Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. case, can no longer be invoked by an employer. The Tribunal is now at liberty to consider not only whether the finding of misconduct recorded by an employer is correct, but also to differ from the said finding if a proper case is made out. What was once largely in the realm of the satisfaction of the employer, has ceased to be so, and now it is the satisfaction of the Tribunal that finally decides the matter.
To come to a conclusion either way, the Tribunal will have to re-appraise the evidence for itself. Ultimately it may hold that the misconduct itself is not proved or that the misconduct proved does not warrant the punishment of dismissal or discharge.
…..
In other words, the Tribunal may hold that the proved misconduct does not merit punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. It can, under such circumstances, award to the workman only lesser punishment instead. The power to interfere with the punishment and alter the same has been now conferred on the Tribunal by Section 11-A.”
From the above it is very clear that the CGIT has been bestowed extensive powers in interfering with the decision of the employer in disciplinary and other service matters and the remedy against its decision lies before the High Court under its extra Ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under 227 of our Constitution. To invoke Article 226 there has to be substantial irregularity in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal causing grave prejudice to you and in proceeding as per Article 227 issues like factual error, legal error or inadequate appreciation of evidence could be tried.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.