1997 JTR(SC) 843
1997 AIR(SC) 2661 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2625 ; 1997 2 CLR 385 ; 1997 91 FJR 319 ; 1997 76 FLR 899 ; 1997 5 JT 604 ; 1997 LIC 2649 ; 1997 2 LLJ 1041 ; 1997 2 LLN 1017 ; 1997 3 RSJ 369 ; 1997 4 Scale 324 ; 1997 6 SCC 159 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1434 ; 1997 SCR 235 ; 1997 3 SCT 580 ; 1997 4 SLR 593 ; 1997 2 UJ 125 ; 1997 KHC 952 ; 1997 6 Supreme 126
1997(6) Supreme 126
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. etc. -Appellants
versus
Kala Singh etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6339 of 1994
With
Civil Appeal No. 228 of 1995
Decided on 7-5-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants in C.A. No. 6339/94 & Respondents in C.A. No. 228/95 : Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, S.K. Mehta and Jaideep Vedi, Advocates.
For the Respondent C.A. No. 6339/94 & Appellants in C.A. No. 228/95 : Dr. Meera Aggarwal and R.C. Mishra, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
On the Labour Court s recording a finding that the domestic enquiry was defective and giving opportunity to adduce evidence by the Management and the workman and recording of the finding that dismissal by Management was valid, it would relate back to the date of original dismissal and not from the date of judgment of Labour Court.
Act Referred :INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.11(a)
(A) The Industrial Disputes Act, Section 11(a), governs the principles of adjudication and disciplinary action within industrial employment relationships, specifically addressing the validity of dismissal orders where domestic enquiry procedures are found defective. This provision was central to the dispute concerning the reinstatement and consequential relief available to the workman after an adverse determination by the disciplinary authority. The statutory scheme mandates that any such dismissal must withstand scrutiny on the basis of procedural fairness and substantive justification, particularly where an inquiry is deemed insufficient or flawed by a lower tribunal.
(B) The key legal principle established is that where a Labour Court finds the domestic enquiry to be defective and grants an opportunity to the management to adduce fresh evidence, and subsequently determines that the dismissal was valid, the consequence is that the order of termination relates back to the date of the original dismissal, not the date of the Labour Court's judgment. This aligns with the broader jurisprudence emphasizing the validity of dismissal once substantiated, irrespective of procedural lapses corrected through the judicial process.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, engaged as a Dairy Helper-cum-Cleaner, faced charges of inflating milk supply quantities and fat content while recording lower actual fat levels. Following a domestic enquiry, the appellant-Corporation dismissed him. The Labour Court identified defects in the domestic enquiry, ordered a fresh adduction of evidence, and ultimately upheld the dismissal as valid. The High Court modified the effect, directing relainstatement from the date of its judgment. This reference challenged that modification.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court recorded that the dismissal was valid based on evidence adduced after addressing the defects in the domestic enquiry. It was held that the order of termination should relate back to the date of the original dismissal. The High Court's intervention was found to be contrary to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench.
Issues:
Whether the order of termination relates back to the date of the original dismissal or the date of the Labour Court judgment, and whether the dismissal was justified on the evidence after fresh adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi:
Upon a finding by the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was defective and that valid evidence subsequently justifies dismissal, the termination must be deemed effective from the date of the original dismissal, not the date of the judicial order setting aside the dismissal.
Result:
Appeal allowed; cross appeal dismissed. The order of the High Court is set aside, and the dismissal is deemed to have operated from the original date.
(A) The Industrial Disputes Act, Section 11(a), governs the principles of adjudication and disciplinary action within industrial employment relationships, specifically addressing the validity of dismissal orders where domestic enquiry procedures are found defective. This provision was central to the dispute concerning the reinstatement and consequential relief available to the workman after an adverse determination by the disciplinary authority. The statutory scheme mandates that any such dismissal must withstand scrutiny on the basis of procedural fairness and substantive justification, particularly where an inquiry is deemed insufficient or flawed by a lower tribunal.
(B) The key legal principle established is that where a Labour Court finds the domestic enquiry to be defective and grants an opportunity to the management to adduce fresh evidence, and subsequently determines that the dismissal was valid, the consequence is that the order of termination relates back to the date of the original dismissal, not the date of the Labour Court's judgment. This aligns with the broader jurisprudence emphasizing the validity of dismissal once substantiated, irrespective of procedural lapses corrected through the judicial process.
Facts of the case:
The respondent, engaged as a Dairy Helper-cum-Cleaner, faced charges of inflating milk supply quantities and fat content while recording lower actual fat levels. Following a domestic enquiry, the appellant-Corporation dismissed him. The Labour Court identified defects in the domestic enquiry, ordered a fresh adduction of evidence, and ultimately upheld the dismissal as valid. The High Court modified the effect, directing relainstatement from the date of its judgment. This reference challenged that modification.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court recorded that the dismissal was valid based on evidence adduced after addressing the defects in the domestic enquiry. It was held that the order of termination should relate back to the date of the original dismissal. The High Court's intervention was found to be contrary to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench.
Issues:
Whether the order of termination relates back to the date of the original dismissal or the date of the Labour Court judgment, and whether the dismissal was justified on the evidence after fresh adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi:
Upon a finding by the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry was defective and that valid evidence subsequently justifies dismissal, the termination must be deemed effective from the date of the original dismissal, not the date of the judicial order setting aside the dismissal.
Result:
Appeal allowed; cross appeal dismissed. The order of the High Court is set aside, and the dismissal is deemed to have operated from the original date.
ORDER
In CA No. 6339/94
This matter has come up by way of reference made by a Bench of three Judges to consider the correctness of the decision of this Court in Desh Raj Gupta v. Industrial Tribunal, IV, U.P. & Anr.1 With a view to appreciate the contention of the parties, it is necessary to record few relevant facts. While the respondent was working as a Dairy Helper-cum-Cleaner for collecting the milk from various centres, he was charged for the misconduct that on April 28, 1990 and on other dates, he inflated the quantum of the milk supplies in milk centres to the appellant-Corporation and also inflated the quality of the fat contents, while there were less fat contents. After conducting the domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service. On reference, the Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry conducted by the appellant was defective. Consequently, opportunity was given to the Management to adduce evidence afresh to justify the order of dismissal. Accordingly, evidence was adduced by the appellant as well as the delinquent-respondent. On consideration of the evidence, the Labour Court by its award dated November 14, 1990 held that the charge had been proved against the respondent. On the quantum of punishment, it was held that the punishment was not disproportionate to the magnitude of the misconduct of the respondent. However, on filing of the writ petition, the High Court set aside the award of the reference Court to the extent of the confirmation of the dismissal from service with effect the date of the judgment of the Labour Court and not from any date earlier thereto. This Court while granting leave referred the matter to three Judge Bench to consider the correctness of the judgment in Desh Raj Gupta s case (supra) in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench. Subsequent to the reference, another Bench of two Judges has elaborately considered the entire case law in R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer & Anr.2 In the decision of the Constitution Bench in P.H. Kalyani v. Air France3, this Court had held that once the Labour Court found the domestic enquiry to be defective and gave opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence found that the order of termination of the service or dismissal from service is valid, it would relate back to the original order of the dismissal. But a discarded note was expressed by three Judges Bench in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Mazdoor Sabha4, which was considered by this Court in Thiruvirkolam case (supra) and it was held that in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench, three-Judge Bench judgment was not correct. Desh Raj Gupta s case was also considered and it was held that it has not been correctly decided. Thus, we are relieved of reviewing the entire case law in that behalf.
2. In view of the aforesaid decisions and in view of the findings recorded by the Labour Court, we are of the considered opinion that the view expressed in Desh Raj Gupta s case is not correct. It is accordingly over-ruled. Following the judgment of the Constitution Bench, we hold that on the Labour Court s recording a finding that the domestic enquiry was defective and giving opportunity to adduce the evidence by the Management and the workmen and recording of the finding that the dismissal by the management was valid, it would relate back to the date of the original dismissal and not from the date of the judgment of the Labour Court.
3. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court stands set aside. No costs.
In CA No. 228/95
4. This is a cross appeal filed by the workman. It is contended by the learned counsel for the workman that the charges were not correct; the Labour Court has not properly considered the evidence and the view that the order relates back to the date of the dismissal was not correct. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the Labour Court after adduction of evidence came to the conclusion that the dismissal is justifiable. On the basis of the evidence adduced before it, no doubt, the Labour Court has not elaborately considered the entire evidence, but agreed to the decision that the misconduct has been proved. In view of the proof of misconduct, the necessary consequence would be that the Management has lost the confidence that the appellant would truthfully and faithfully carry on his duties and consequently the Labour Court rightly declined to exercise the power under Section 11-A to grant relief of reinstatement with minor penalty.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal No. 6339 allowed Appeal No. 228 of 1995 dismissed.
********