Hidayatullah, J.

1. This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial award of the labour court, Assam, in a dispute between the management of the Lambabari Tea Estate (owned by the Consolidated Tea and Lands Company, Ltd., Mazbat) and the workmen of the tea estate represented by the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha. On 5 June, 1961 the Government of Assam referred this dispute by Notification No. G.L.R. 230/61/10 for the adjudication of the following matter of dispute among others :

"(1) Whether the management of Lambabari Tea estate were justified in dismissing the following workmen, viz. :

(1) Smt. Hara,

(2) Smt. Sova,

(3) Smt. Somavia,

(4) Smt. Janoo,

(5) Smt. Golapi,

(6) Smt. Tulsa,

(7) Solu,

(8) Smt. Ratani,

(9) Smt. Gaili, and

(10) Smt. Donmonia

for alleged gross misconduct

(2) If not, are they entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof

(3)(a) * * *

(b) * * *"

The facts of the dispute may now be stated briefly.

2. On 29 October, 1960, five labourers (including some women) arrived late for work. The work at the tea estate commenced at 8 a.m. and time was announced by sounding a siren at 6, 7 and 8 a.m. The labourers were refused work as they were late. According to the sangha they were pushed out of the line by M. C. Loughlin, the manager, and according to the management they were turned away by the assistant manager but not pushed. Immediately the labourers, who numbered a few hundreds, stopped work and surrounded the office, demanding to see the manager, and seeking an assurance from him that delay in attendance would not be seriously taken note of. It seems that M. C. Loughlin who had newly taken over as manager was enforcing punctuality and this was resented by the labourers. The sangha also alleged that he was opposed to trade union activity and was precipitating matters to get rid of trade union workers on the tea estate. The sangha and the labourers stated that the demonstration was peaceful while the management alleged that the labourers were rowdy and threatening. It appears that the manager and his assistant and the staff could not or did not leave the office and remained confined there from morning to night. First the police and then the military were summoned and on the latters arrival the crowd melted away and the labourers returned to their homes. The manager reported the matter to the police but as no action was taken, he filed himself a criminal complaint. As we are not concerned with it, we need not refer to it here.On 3 November, 1960 the management charged the labourers whose names are given in the notification with forcibly and illegally confining the manager, the assistant manager and the staff in the office between 9-30 a.m. and 8 p.m. and with shouting slogans and abusing the manager, offences under standing orders 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(7) of the tea estate. These labourers were also placed under suspension from 4 November, 1960 pending enquiry into the charges. The labourers, however, continued to work, refusing to obey the order of suspension. On 12 November, 1960 a second charge was served on them for disobeying the order of suspension, an offence under standing order 10(a)(1).

3. Two separate inquiries were held into the two charges. On the first charge the inquiry was held from 5 November and on the second from the 14th of the same month. A common order in respect of both charges was passed on 29 December, 1960 against each of the ten labourers. They were dismissed on and from 29 December with all emoluments paid up to date. The Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha then raised an industrial dispute and the reference was made.

4. The inquiry which was held by the management on the first charge was presided over by the manager himself. It was conducted in the presence of the assistant manager and two others. The enquiry was not correct in its procedure. The manager recorded the statements, cross-examined the labourers who were the offenders and made and recorded his own statements on facts and questioned the offending labourers about the truth of his own statements recorded by himself. The manager did not keep his function as the inquiring officer distinct but became witness, prosecutor and manager in turns. The record of the enquiry as a result is staccato and unsatisfactory. We have in many cases indicated the manner in which these domestic enquiries should be made. Reference may be made to the following :Workmen of Dem Dima Tea Estate v. Dem Dima Tea Estate [1963 - I L.L.J. 250];

Meenglas Tea Estate v. Its workmen [1963 - II L.L.J. 392]; and

Andhra Scientific Company, Ltd. v. Seshagiri Rao (A.) and another [1961 - II L.L.J. 117].

5. It is not necessary to recapitulate what we have said on earlier occasions. We shall content ourselves by saying that the enquiry should always be entrusted to a person who is not a witness. If it is not possible to find such a person, some officer from another estate should be asked to help in the matter. An inquiry cannot be said to be held properly when the person holding the enquiry beings to rely on his own statements. The inquiry here suffered from this defect.

6. In view of what we have said above, we have seriously considered whether the tribunal was right in accepting the result of the domestic enquiry. On examination of the record, however, we are satisfied that there are reasons why we should not interfere. The matter was simple in one sense because the necessary facts were all admitted. The first point to determine was the behaviour of the labourers, that is to say, whether they were peaceful or threatening and rowdy. If the latter was established the next point to determine was which of the labourers charged by the management has taken part in the demonstration. At the base of the events lay the solitary fact that some labourers were late and were turned away from work and this was not something which ought to have excited anyone. The tribunal examined three witnesses to satisfy itself that there was, in fact, evidence against the labourers who have been found guilty.

7. Now it has been found as a fact by the tribunal that the five labourers were turned away by the five labourers were turned away by the assistant manager and not the labourers left their work and went in a body to protest and demanded that the rule about punctual attendance be relaxed. Before the tribunal Salu Praja (One of those charged by the management) was examined. On the other side, the manager and the assistant manager were examined. After considering the statement of Salu Praja and the statements of the manager and the assistant manager, we are satisfied that the findings of the tribunal are proper and then of the military speaks volumes and corroborates the version of the management. Bammi, the assistant manager, proved the statement made by him before the domestic tribunal. In the enquiry he had identified as members of the crowd Hara an Ratni who were very abusing, Colani, who had incited the others to leave work, Goili who was shouting and abusing and challenging the manager to give notice and Salu Praja, who himself admitted that he was present. The case against these labourers was thus proved by the assistant manager. There is other evidence too which we have not mentioned here. As regards these labourers and the remaining labourers there is also the second charge. Evidence on that charge is clear and there is no interjection by the manager because the witness prove service of the orders of suspension and their disobedience by all the ten labourers. The men babu and the women babu (who must be timekeepers for the men and women section) have deposed against all the ten labours. Thus all the labourers who were charged were rightly adjudged guilty of disobedience of the orders issued to them. On the whole we are satisfied that despite the flaws in the enquiry, this is a case in which we should accept the decision of the tribunal.

8. The appeal fails and is dismissed but we make no order about costs.