1992 JTR(SC) 756
1993 2 AllCJ 820 ; 1993 1 LLN 981 ; 1993 2 SCC 191 ; 1993 SCC(L&S) 500
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. Ray, P.B. Sawant
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS
VERSUS
A. K. CHATTERJEE, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 4523 of 1992 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11849 of 1992), decided on October 19, 1992.
Prospective application of court decisions
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.311(2)
Delay condoned - Special leave granted - Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan - The court set aside the decision of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for decision on merits on other points.
Fact of the Case:
The Tribunal allowed the application of respondent-employee based on the non-furnishing of the inquiry report, relying on a previous court decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal failed to notice the prospective application of the previous court decision and set aside the decision, remanding the matter for further consideration.
Issues: Non-furnishing of inquiry report, prospective application of court decision
Ratio Decidendi: The law laid down in the previous court decision applies prospectively, and the order of dismissal in the present case was passed prior to the said decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Tribunal was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for decision on merits on other points. No order as to costs.
Delay condoned - Special leave granted - Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan - The court set aside the decision of the Tribunal and remanded the matter for decision on merits on other points.
Fact of the Case:
The Tribunal allowed the application of respondent-employee based on the non-furnishing of the inquiry report, relying on a previous court decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal failed to notice the prospective application of the previous court decision and set aside the decision, remanding the matter for further consideration.
Issues: Non-furnishing of inquiry report, prospective application of court decision
Ratio Decidendi: The law laid down in the previous court decision applies prospectively, and the order of dismissal in the present case was passed prior to the said decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Tribunal was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for decision on merits on other points. No order as to costs.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned. Special leave granted.
2. The Tribunal allowed the application of respondent-employee only on the ground that the inquiry report was not furnished to him. For this purpose, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan((1991) 1 SCC 588 : 1991 Scc (L&S) 612 : (1991) 16 ATC 505 : AIR 1991 SC 471). Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not noticed the operative part of the judgment in the above case where it is made clear that the law laid down there will apply prospectively. Admittedly, in the present case, the order of dismissal was passed prior to the said decision. Hence the impugned decision of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for decision on merits on other points.
3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.