8/2/2019 Case Laws1

1/8

Case 1: 2006 (8) SCJ 837 Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs.

Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad

Parties- Depot manager, APSRTC on the part of the

employer Vs Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad the convict Problem- Respondent, while working as Mechanic in

appellant-Corporation, had committed theft of articles in the

garage of Bus Depot .

Facts-

Domestic enquiry conducted .Enquiry Officer found him

guilty of charges framed against him . Basing on enquiry

report, disciplinary authority removed him from service.

Labour Court hold that punishment of removal was justified.

Single Judge of High Court, in writ petition, set aside order

or removal and directed reinstatement of respondent with

continuity of service but without back wages

On appeal, Division Bench upheld the order of single Judge .

Judgment-

Theft committed by respondent amounted to misconduct .

When he was found guilty of theft, Corporation had lost

confidence or faith in him .

Hence he had no legal right to continue in appellant

Corporation.

Punishment of removal from service was just and reasonable

and proportionate to the proved misconduct.

Labour Court had exercised its jurisdiction judiciously and

fairly.

8/2/2019 Case Laws1

2/8

Interference with the order of Labour Court by single Judge

and Division Bench was uncalled for

Order of reinstatement passed by single Judge and upheld by

Division Bench was contrary to law ,hence Order of LabourCourt restored.

Case law- High Court may modify the punishment only

when it finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly

disproportionate to the charges proved No place for

generosity or sympathy on the part of judicial forums for

interfering with quantum of punishment.(CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA, Article 226 Judicial review Quantum of punishment

Interference with Held)

Case 2 :A.N. Bhoir and Ors. Vs The Tata Power Company

Ltd. & Anr.

Parties- A.N. Bhoir and Ors. Vs The Tata Power Company

Ltd. & Anr.

Problem- Dismissal from services of the senior security

guards in the security department at Trombay ThermalPower Station.

Facts-

Senior security guards, consuming liquor at night of

31.12.1999, were caught who admitted the guilt.

They were also medically examined and the medical report

confirmed that breath of the petitioner workmen smelt

strongly of alchohol, their eyes were red and there was

tremor in hand.

After holding proper enquiry, they were dismissed.

Judgment-

8/2/2019 Case Laws1

3/8

Labour court upheld the enquiry and restored the

punishment of dismissal from service.

Petitioner workmen challanged the validity of enquiry that it

was completed in 1 and half hours.

Plea rejected by the High court in holding that even though

there was no need of enquiry, the management has

conducted it and the workmen have admitted the charge.

Case-3 Phulbari Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 6 May, 1959

Parties- PETITIONER: PHULBARI TEA ESTATE

RESPONDENT: ITS WORKMEN

Problem- The appellant is the Phulbari Tea Estate (hereinaftercalled the company). The case relates to the dismissal of oneworkman namely, B. N. Das (hereinafter called Das), which hadbeen taken up by the Assam Chah Karmchari Sangh. which is aregistered trade union.

Facts- A reference was made by the Government of Assam on

March 8, 1956, to the Industrial Tribunal on the questionwhether the dismissal of Das was justified; and if not,whether he was entitled to reinstatement with or withoutcompensation or any other relief in lieu thereof. Das wasdismissed by the company on March 12, 1955. The chargeagainst him was that on the night of February 6/7, 1955, healong with one Samson, also an employee of the company,committed theft of two wheels complete with tyres andtubes from the company's lorry, which amounted to gross

misconduct under the Standing Orders. The case was reported to the police and 'Das as well as

Samson were arrested. Das remained in jail up to February25, 1955, when he was released on bail.

He reported for duty on February 28 ; but the managersuspended him for ten days from March 1. Thereafter, hewas served with a charge-sheet on March 10, 1955, asking

8/2/2019 Case Laws1

4/8

him to show cause why he should not be dismissed for grossmisconduct as mentioned above.

He gave a reply on March 11, that as the case was sub judicein the criminal court, the question of dismissal did not arise

at that stage and the allegations against him would have tobe proved in the court. On March 12, the manager held anenquiry, which was followed by dismissal, on that very day.

However, the police submitted a final report and themagistrate discharged Das on March 23, 1955. Thereafter,his case was taken up by the union and eventually referencewas made to the Tribunal on March 8, 1956.

The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the dismissal ofDas was not justified on the ground of proper procedure nothaving been followed and also for want of legal evidence. Itwent on to say that normally Das would have been entitledto reinstatement but in the peculiar circumstances of thiscase it was of opinion that he should be granted thealternative relief for compensation.

Consequently, it ordered that Das would be entitled to hispay and allowances from February 28, to March 11, 1955and full pay and allowances from March 12, till the date ofpayment. It also ordered that he would be entitled to fifteenday's pay for every completed year of service along with all

benefits that accrued to him till the date of final payment.This award, was given on October 23,1956, and was in duecourse published and came into force.

The company came up in appeal by special leave to theSupreme Court, where, for the first time it raised thequestion of the qualification and competency of the onemember Tribunal under S. 7 Of the Act. Held, that thequestion whether the Tribunal was a competent one under s.7 of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Judgment- The case was dismissed by the court.

Principle- The basic principle of natural justice in an enquiry was that

the opponent must be given the opportunity of questioningthe witnesses after knowing in full what they had to stateagainst him. The witnesses on whom the party relied should

8/2/2019 Case Laws1

5/8

generally be examined in the presence of the opponent andhe must also be informed about the material sought to beused against him, and given an opportunity to explain it.

Held, further, that if there was defect in the conduct of the

enquiry by the employer it could be cured if all the relevantevidence including the witnesses who were not examined inthe presence of the workman were produced before the

Tribunal, thereby giving the party an opportunity to cross-examine them, and leaving it to the Tribunal to consider theevidence and decide the case on merits.

Case4- Sri Kasi Nath Chakrabarty .. vs Central Bank Of India &

Ors.

Parties- PETITIONER: SRI KASI NATH CHAKRABARTYRESPONDENT: CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS

Problem- The petitioner was appointed as a clerk under therespondent No.1 on April 30, 1971. A show-cause notice datedApril 11, 2006 was served upon him for non adherence to thenorms and guidelines of the respondent bank in sanctioning loansto different persons .The petitioner was placed under suspensionby an order dated May 3, 2006 pending disciplinary action. Hesubmitted a reply dated June 16, 2006.

Facts-

A charge-sheet dated July 4, 2006 was served upon thepetitioner on the basis of the charges levelled against him ascontained in the articles of charges.

The petitioner submitted his reply dated July 13, 2006.

The enquiry proceeding in the matter concluded on May 7,2007. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated July31,2007. Finally the disciplinary authority passed theimpugned order of punishment dated December 3, 2007with the punishment of "dismissal which shall ordinarily be adisqualification for future employment".

The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal against theimpugned order of punishment. The above appeal was

8/2/2019 Case Laws1

6/8

dismissed by the appellate authority by an order datedAugust 16, 2008.

The petitioner then appealed to the high court.Judgment-

Therefore, the charge-sheet dated July 4, 2006, the enquiry reportdated July 12, 2007, the impugned order of punishment datedDecember 3, 2007 as also the order dated August 16, 2008passed by the appellate authority in the matter are quashed andset aside. Since the petitioner has already attained the age ofretirement on October 31, 2009, he cannot be reinstated in theservice, but the consequential benefits shall be paid to him withina period of two months' from date.

Principle-

The disciplinary authority took a final decision of appointingenquiry officer for holding an enquiry at the time of issuing thecharge- sheet under reference. It is a settled principles of law thatthe disciplinary proceedings in the matter started from issuing thecharge-sheet. At that initial stage the disciplinary authority took afinal decision of conducting enquiry in the matter without givingan opportunity to the petitioner for disclosing his defence beforethe disciplinary authority. Therefore, the petitioner was deprivedof an opportunity for placing his defence before taking a decision

for holding enquiry in the matter. It is the settled principles of lawthat the disciplinary authority was under an obligation to apply itsmind upon receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet as to whetheran enquiry was called for and only in the event upon deliberationsand due consideration if it was in the affirmative, the enquiryproceeding was required to be initiated. In that view of thematter, the charge-sheet was issued in this case with closedmind.

Case5- Balijan South Tea Estate vs Labour Court And Ors. on 27 January,1967

Parties-The Petitioner- Eastern Assam Tea Company

The respondent- Moneswar Dutta,Problem- The management, namely, the Eastern Assam TeaCompany,Ltd., the petitioner herein, dismissed one Moneswar

8/2/2019 Case Laws1

7/8

Dutta, opposite party 3 in this petition, who was working as awoman mohorer in the Balijan South Tea Estate under thepetitioner.

Facts- A charge was framed against Moneswar Dutta which stated

that when the total quantity of the green leaves plucked byopposite party 3's daffa was re-weighed, a large discrepancyto the tune of 489-50 kilograms was found short against thefigure shown by the opposite party 3 as representing theweight of the green leaves in question.

This discrepancy indicated that the opposite party 3 hadcommitted a grave misconduct in showing that the greenleaves plucked leveled much more and payment had to Toe

made on that weight than what actually it was. An explanation was called for from the opposite party 3 on

this charge. Thereafter, the manager of the establishment",Sri J. P. Knight, held an enquiry and received and recordedevidence on the charge.

This evidence was recorded in the presence of the oppositeparty 3 who was given an opportunity to cross-examine thewitnesses which opportunity, however, he did not availhimself of. He was given an opportunity further to offer his

explanation, if any, at the conclusion of the enquiry but hehad co explanation to submit explaining his conduct Inrespect of the charge.

He further did not want to cross-examine anybody even atthat stage. On the conclusion of the proceedings, taking intoaccount the fact that the opposite party 3 had noexplanation to offer at the enquiry, the enquiring officer feltsatisfied that the charge had been established.

Dutta, in fact, had no explanation to submit at the enquiry.

The present grave offence he had committed coupled withhis paat warning for an offence of a similar nature and hiscomplete disregard of the instructions given to him Inrespect of green-leaf weighment by the management. hadrendered him liable to Instant dismissal.

Thereafter, the manager served a notice on 28 November1961 intimating opposite party 3 that the evidence available

8/2/2019 Case Laws1

8/8

at the enquiry established his guilt; that the verbalexplanations offered by him at the enquiry were found mostunsatisfactory and that he was found guilty of grossmisconduct under the standing Order 10 (a)(2) and that

accordingly he had been dismissed from the service of thecompany with effect from 28 November 1961.

Sri Choudhuri, the learned Counsel for the opposite party 3,contended that the original enquiry

proceedings had not been produced In the case, that,therefore, there is nothing to show what evidence hadactually been given, that there was no enquiry report madeand that, therefore, the enquiry must be held to be bad andthat this entitled the presiding officer of the labour court toreopen the matter, invite fresh evidence and to come to his

own conclusion, as he did in this case, and that his awardcould not, therefore, be questioned.

Judgment-As there is nothing wrong with the enquiry by way of its offendingthe principles of natural justice and as sufficient record of theenquiry is forthcoming and also of the reasons for the conclusionreached by the enquiring officer in holding the opposite partyguilty of the charge and for giving the punishment that has been

given to him, namely, of dismissal, the presiding officer of thelabour court was not at all justified in reopening the matter andrecording fresh evidence as if the domestic enquiry was bad, asIndicated above. circumstances In which the presiding officer ofthe labour court could reopen a domestic enquiry and interferewith a conclusion reached therein and take fresh evidence andcome to his own conclusions have been set out in more than onedecision of ours wherein we made it clear that unless and untilthe labour court is satisfied that there has been violation of theprinciples of natural justice and consequential failure of justice orthat the finding reached by the management is perverse onaccount of total lack of evidence, there would be no justificationfor the labour court to interfere with the finding of themanagement. Hence the petition is allowed set aside the award ofthe presiding officer of the labour court and restore the order ofthe management dismissing the opposite party from service.