Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
PUNJAB DIARY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KALA SINGH ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIRAHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 228 OF1995
O R D E R
In CA No. 6339/94
he was charged for the misconduct that on April 28,1990
and onother dates, he inflated the quantumof themilk
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 authoritydismissed himfrom
service. On reference,the Labour Court found that the
domestic enquiry conducted bythe appellant was defective.
Consequently, opportunity; wasgiven to the Management to
adduce evidence afreshto justify the order of dismissal.
Accordingly, evidence was adduced by the appellant aswell
as the delinquent-respondent. On consideration of the
evidence, the Labour court by its award dated November
14,1990held that thecharge had been proved against the
respondent. Onthe quantum ofpunishment, it was heldthat
the punishmentwas notdisproportionate to themagnitude of
the Misconductof the respondent. However, on filing of the
writ petition,the High Courtset aside theaward of the
reference Curtto theextent of the confirmation of the
dismissal from service with effect the date of the
judgement of the Labour Courtan not from anydate earlier
thereto. This court while granting leave referred the matter
to three judgeBench to consider thecorrectness of the
judgment in Desh Raj Gupta’s case (supra) inthe light of
the judgment of the Constitution Bench. Subsequent to the
reference, another Bench of two judges has elaborately
considered theentire case law in R. Thiruvirkolam vs.
Presiding officer & Anr. [(1997) 1 SCC 9]. Inthe decision
of theConstitution Bench in P.H. Kalyani vs. Air France
[(1964)2 SCR 104], This court had heldthat once the Labour
Court found the domestic enquiry to be defective andgave
opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence foundthat
the order of termination of the service or dismissalfrom
serviceis valid. it would relate back to the original order
of thedismissal. buta discarded note was expressed by
three Judges bench inGujaratsteel Tubes ltd. Vs. Mazdoor
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593] whichwas considered by this Court
This matter has come up by way of reference madeby a
bench of three Judges to consider the decision of this court
in Desh Raj Gupta vs.Industrial Tribunal. IV, U.P. &Anr.
[(1991)1 SCC 249] With a viewto appreciate the contention
of theparties, it isnecessary to record few relevant
facts. While the respondent was working as a Dairy Helper-
cum-Cleaner forcollecting the milk from various center
in Thiruvirkolam case (supra)and it was heldthat inview
of the judgmentof the constitution Bench, three-judge Bench
judgment was not correct. Desh Rai Gupta’s case wasalso
considered andit washeld that it has not been correctly
decided. Thus,we are relievedof reviewing the entirecase
law in that behalf.
Inview of the aforesaiddecisions and in view of the
findings recorded by the labour court, weare of the
considered opinion that the view expressed in Desh Raj
Gupta’scase is not correct. It is accordingly over-ruled.
Following the judgmentof theConstitution Bench, wehold
that on the Labour court’s recordinga finding that the
domestic enquiry was defective and giving opportunity to
adduce the evidence by the management and the workman and
recording of t he finding that the dismissal by the
management wasvalid. it would relate back to the date of
the original dismissal and not from thedate ofthe judgment
of the Labour Court.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the
High Court stands set aside. Nocosts.
In CA No. 228/95
This is across appeal filed bythe workman. It is
contended by the learned counsel forthe workman that the
chargeswere not correct; the Labour Court hasnot properly
considered theevidence and the view that the order relates
back to the date of the dismissal wasnot correct. Wefind
no force in thecontention. It is seen that theLabour Court
after adduction of evidence came to the conclusion that the
dismissal is justifiable. On the basis of the evidence
adducedbeforeit, nodoubt,the Labour Court has not
elaborately consideredthe entire evidence, but agreed to
the decision that the misconduct hasbeen proved. Inview
of theproof of misconduct, the necessary consequence would
be that the management has lost t he confidence that the
appellant would truthfully and faithfully carry on his
duties and consequentlythe labour Court rightly declined to
exercise the power under Section 11-A to grant relief of
reinstatement with minor penalty.
The appealis accordingly dismissed. No costs.