Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2738 of 2001
PETITIONER:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA & ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/05/2001
BENCH:
S.P. Bharucha & N. Santosh Hegde
JUDGMENT:
SANTOSH HEGDE,J.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
This appeal is referred to a Bench of Five Judges based
on the following order made by a Bench of two Judges of this
Court.
In view of the conflict of decisions of this Court in
Shambhu Nath Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda & Others, (1984 (1)
SCR 85) and Rajendra Jha vs. Labour Court, (1985 (1) SCR
544), we are referring this matter to a larger Bench which
has to be a Bench of more than three Judges. Mr. Rao,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents, states that
there is no conflict in the decisions. According to us,
that submission is not correct. Hence, we are referring
this to a larger Bench.
It is seen from the above order that the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents had contended that there is no
conflict between the two judgments referred to in the said
order. However, the Bench thought otherwise. Since it is
again contended now before us on behalf of the respondents
that there is no conflict between the said judgments, we
will first examine that aspect of the case.
In Shambu Nath Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda & Others (1984
1 SCR 85) this Court held:
The rights which the employer has in law to adduce
additional evidence in a proceeding before the Labour Court
or Industrial Tribunal either under section 10 or section 33
of the Industrial Disputes Act questioning the legality of
the order terminating the service must be availed of by the
employer by making a proper request at the time when it
files its statement of claim or written statement or makes
an application seeking either permission to take certain
action or seeking approval of the action taken by it.
(emphasis supplied)
This decision was rendered by the Court while deciding
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
the stage at which the management is entitled to seek
permission to adduce evidence in justification of its
decision taken on the basis of a domestic enquiry.
In Rajendra Jha vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Bokaro Steel City, Distt.Dhanbad & Anr. (1985 (1) SCR 544),
though this Court was considering a similar question, we
find the Court did not lay down any law contrary to the
judgment in Shambu Nath Goyals case. A perusal of the
judgment of this Court in Rajendra Jhas case shows that the
Court decided the said case on the facts of that case only.
This is clear from the following observations of the Court
in Rajendra Jhas case :
Thus, the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the
employers to lead evidence has been accepted and acted upon
by the appellant. He has already given a list of his own
witnesses and has cross-examined the witnesses whose
evidence was led by the employers. It would be wrong, at
this stage, to undo what has been done in pursuance of the
order of the Labour Court. Besides, the challenge made by
the appellant to the order of the Labour Court has failed
and the order of the Patna High Court dismissing the
appellants writ petition has become final.
Thus it is seen from the above observations of the Court
in Rajendra Jhas case that same is decided on the facts of
the said case without laying down any principle of law nor
has the Court taken any view opposed to Shambu Nath Goyals
case. Therefore, having considered the two judgments, we
are of the opinion that there is no conflict in the
judgments of this Court in the cases of Shambu Nath Goyal
and Rajendra Jha.
This, however, does not conclude our consideration of
this appeal, because on behalf of the appellant reliance is
placed on some other earlier judgments of this Court which,
according to the appellant, have taken a view contrary to
that of Shambu Nath Goyals case. Therefore, we consider it
appropriate to decide this question with a hope of putting a
quietus to the same.
Before we proceed to examine this question any further,
it will be useful to bear in mind that the right of a
management to lead evidence before the Labour Court or the
Industrial Tribunal in justification of its decision under
consideration by such tribunal or Court is not a statutory
right. This is actually a procedure laid down by this Court
to avoid delay and multiplicity of proceedings in the
disposal of disputes between the management and the workman.
The geneses of this procedure can be traced by noticing the
following observations of this Court in Workmen of Motipur
Sugar Factory (P)Ltd. Vs. Motipur Sugar Factory (1965 (3)
SCR 588) :
If it is held that in cases where the employer
dismisses his employee without holding an enquiry, the
dismissal must be set aside by the industrial tribunal only
on that ground, it would inevitably mean that the employer
will immediately proceed to hold the enquiry and pass an
order dismissing the employee once again. In that case,
another industrial dispute would arise and the employer
would be entitled to rely upon the enquiry which he had held
in the mean-time. This course would mean delay and on the
second occasion it will entitle the employer to claim the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
benefit of the domestic enquiry given. On the other hand,
if in such cases the employer is given an opportunity to
justify the impugned dismissal on the merits of his case
being considered by the tribunal for itself and that clearly
would be to the benefit of the employee. That is why this
Court has consistently held that if the domestic enquiry is
irregular, invalid or improper, the tribunal may give an
opportunity to the employer to prove his case and in doing
so the tribunal tries the merits itself.
Bearing in mind the above observations if we examine the
various decisions of this Court on this question it is seen
that in all the judgments this Court has agreed on the
conferment of this right of the management but there seems
to be some differences of opinion in regard to the timings
of making such application. While some judgments hold that
such a right can be availed by the management at any stage
of the proceedings right upto the stage of pronouncement of
the order on the original application filed either under
Section 10 or Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, some other judgments hold that the said right can be
invoked only at the threshold.
There are a number of judgments of this Court
considering the above question but we think it sufficient to
refer to the following cases only since these cases have
considered almost all the earlier judgments on the question
involved in this appeal.
In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. vs. Ludh Budh Singh
(1972 (3) SCR 29) this Court after referring to most of the
earlier cases on the point laid down the following principle
:
When a domestic inquiry has been held by the management
and the management relies on it, the management may request
the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic inquiry as
a preliminary issue and also ask for an opportunity to
adduce evidence before the Tribunal if the finding on the
preliminary issue is against the management. In such a case
if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the
management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an
opportunity to adduce additional evidence and also give a
similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence contra.
But the management should avail itself of the said
opportunity by making a suitable request to the Tribunal
before the proceedings are closed. If no such opportunity
has been availed of before the proceedings were closed, the
employer can make no grievance that the Tribunal did not
provide for such an opportunity.
(Emphasis supplied)
The words before the proceedings are closed gave rise
to some doubts as to whether it is open to the management to
seek this right of leading fresh evidence at any stage,
including at a stage where the Tribunal/Labour Court had
concluded the proceedings and reserved its judgment on the
main issue.
The above judgment in D.C.M.s case came to be
considered again by this Court in the case of Cooper
Engineering Limited vs. Sri P.P.Mundhe (1976 (1) SCR 361),
wherein this Court held :
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that when a
case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred
for industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first
decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry
has violated the principles of natural justice. When there
is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by
the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the
matter is in controversy between the parties that question
must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision
being pronounced it will be for the management to decide
whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court.
If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be
thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue.
We should also make it clear that there will be no
justification for any party to stall the final adjudication
of the dispute by the labour court by questioning its
decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the
matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final
award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to
refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these
observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in
industrial adjudication.
As is seen from the above, this Court in Cooper
Engineerings case held that when the Tribunal/Labour Court
was called upon to decide the validity of the domestic
enquiry same has to be tried as a preliminary issue and
thereafter, if necessary, the management was to be given an
option to adduce fresh evidence. But the problem did not
stop at that.
The question again arose in the case of Shambu Nath
Goyals case (supra) as to the propriety of waiting till the
preliminary issue was decided to give an opportunity to the
management to adduce evidence, because after the decision in
the preliminary issue on the validity of the domestic
enquiry, either way, there was nothing much left to be
decided thereafter. Therefore, in Shambu Nath Goyals case
this Court once again considered the said question in a
different perspective. In this judgment, the Court after
discussing the earlier cases including that of Shankar
Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. & Anr. (1979
(3) SCR 1165), which was a judgment of this Court subsequent
to that of Cooper Engineering (supra), the following
principles were laid down:
We think that the application of the management to seek
the permission of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal
for availing the right to adduce further evidence to
substantiate the charge or charges framed against the
workman referred to in the above passage in the application
which may be filed by the management during the pendency of
its application made before the Labour Court or Industrial
Tribunal seeking its permission under section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to take a certain action or
grant approval of the action taken by it. The management is
made aware of the workmans contention regarding the defeat
in the domestic enquiry by the written statement of defence
filed by him in the application filed by the management
under section 33 of the Act. Then, if the management
chooses to exercise its right it must make up its mind at
the earliest stage and file the application for that purpose
without any unreasonable delay. But when the question
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
arises in a reference under s.10 of the Act after the
workman had been punished pursuant to a finding of guilt
recorded against him in the domestic enquiry there is no
question of the management filing any application for
permission to lead further evidence in support of the charge
or charges framed against the workman, for the defeat in the
domestic enquiry is pointed out by the workman in his
written claim statement filed in the Labour Court or
Industrial Tribunal after the reference had been received
and the management has the opportunity to look into that
statement before it files its written statement of defence
in the enquiry before the Labour Court or Industrial
Tribunal and could make the request for the opportunity in
the written statement itself. If it does not choose to do
so at that stage it cannot be allowed to do it at any later
stage of the proceedings by filing any application for the
purpose which may result in delay which may lead to wrecking
the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender which
he may not otherwise do.
While considering the decision in Shambu Nath Goyals
case, we should bear in mind that the judgment of
Vardarajan,J. therein does not refer to the case of Cooper
Engineering (supra). However, the concurring judgment of
D.A.Desai,J. specifically considers this case. By the
judgment in Goyals case the management was given the right
to adduce evidence to justify its domestic enquiry only if
it had reserved its right to do so in the application made
by it under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
or in the objection that the management had to file to the
reference made under section 10 of the Act, meaning thereby
the management had to exercise its right of leading fresh
evidence at the first available opportunity and not at any
time thereafter during the proceedings before the
Tribunal/Labour Court.
Keeping in mind the object of providing an opportunity
to the management to adduce evidence before the
Tribunal/Labour Court, we are of the opinion that the
directions issued by this Court in Shambu Nath Goyals case
need not be varied, being just and fair. There can be no
complaint from the management side for this procedure
because this opportunity of leading evidence is being sought
by the management only as an alternative plea and not as an
admission of illegality in its domestic enquiry. At the
same time, it is also of advantage to the workmen inasmuch
as they will be put to notice of the fact that the
management is likely to adduce fresh evidence, hence, they
can keep their rebuttal or other evidence ready. This
procedure also eliminates the likely delay in permitting the
management to make belated application whereby the
proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal could get
prolonged. In our opinion, the procedure laid down in
Shambu Nath Goyals case is just and fair.
There is one other reason why we should accept the
procedure laid down by this Court in Shambu Nath Goyals
case. It is to be noted that this judgment was delivered on
27th of September, 1983. It has taken note of almost all
the earlier judgments of this Court and has laid down the
procedure for exercising the right of leading evidence by
the management which we have held is neither oppressive nor
contrary to the object and scheme of the Act. This judgment
having held the field for nearly 18 years, in our opinion,
the doctrine of stare decisis require us to approve the said
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
judgment to see that a long standing decision is not
unsettled without strong cause.
For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that
the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shambu Nath
Goyal vs. Bank of Baroda & Others (1984(1) SCR 85) is the
correct law on the point.
In the present case, the appellant employer did not seek
permission to lead evidence until after the Labour Court had
held that its domestic enquiry was vitiated. Applying the
aforestated principles to these facts, we are of the opinion
that the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition
of the appellant, hence, this appeal has to fail. The same
is dismissed with costs.