Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10135 OF 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) Nos. 7187-7194 of 2008)
AMAR CHAKRAVARTY & ORS. — APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. — RESPONDENT
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10144 OF 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 9604 of 2008)
&
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10143 OF 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P (C) No. 21919 of 2008)
J U D G M E N T
D.K. JAIN, J.:
Leave granted.
2. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgments
delivered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby it
dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants herein, holding that the
Labour Court was correct in shifting the burden on the workmen-
appellants to prove that their termination was unjustified.
1
3. Since the question of law arising in all the appeals is the same, these are
being disposed of by this common judgment. However, a brief reference
to the facts in S.L.P (C) No.7187 of 2008 would be expedient in order to
appreciate the controversy at hand.
rd
4. On 23 November, 2000, the respondent-management dismissed the
appellant without holding an enquiry mainly on the allegations that he
had been participating in tool down strike; had been exhorting other
workers to slow down the work so that there is fall in production of cars;
had indulged in holding demonstrations within the factory premises and
raised derogatory and offensive slogans against the management; and
was threatening the supervisors etc. The relevant portion of the dismissal
order reads thus:
“In view of the situation created by you, Management finds that
it is not reasonably practical to hold an enquiry. In view of the
gravity of the misconduct thus committed by you, you are
hereby dismissed from service.”
5. The appellant having raised an industrial dispute, the State Government
referred the same to the Labour Court, Gurgaon under Section 10(1)(c) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). The terms of
reference for the adjudication were:
“Whether the termination of service of Shri Amar Chakarvarty
was justified and in order, if not, to what relief is he entitled?”
2
th
6. On 13 May, 2002, the Labour Court framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner
is justified and if not to what relief he is entitled to? OPM
2. Whether the petitioner is gainfully employed?
3. Relief.”
It is manifest that in relation to issue No. 1, the Labour Court had placed the
onus of proof on the management.
7. Thereafter, the appellants preferred an application before the Labour
Court for framing additional issues and disposal of the reference by
treating them as preliminary issues. One of the proposed additional issue
was with reference to the violation of Standing Order No. 21.3, which
stipulates that no order of dismissal shall be made except after holding an
enquiry against the workman concerned in respect of the alleged
th
misconduct. However, the Labour Court, vide order dated 12 August,
2003, dismissed the application, observing as under:
“It is for the management to prove, by adducing cogent evidence,
that the order of dismissal passed against the workman was
perfectly legal. For that the management is required to adduce
evidence. The matter cannot be cut short (sic) by disallowing the
management to adduce any evidence and by holding the order of
dismissal as illegal, being violative Standing Order 21.3. The
additional issues sought (sic) to be framed by the workman, stand
clearly covered in issue no.1 framed in this case. The workman can
3
lead evidence in rebuttal on issue no.1 to prove those facts which
he wants to bring on record by getting additional issues framed.”
( emphasis supplied by us )
The Labour Court thus, held that in the first instance, it was for the
management to prove, by adducing cogent evidence, that the order of
dismissal passed against the workman was legal.
8. However, on a motion being made by the management, the Labour Court,
st
vide a short order dated 31 January, 2006, shifted the onus of proof in
relation to the afore-extracted issue No. 1 on the workman. The order
reads as follows:
“In view of the latest law on the point. I hereby shift the onus to
prove issue no. 1 from the management to the workman. To
come up on 11.01.2007 for the evidence of the workman.”
9. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a writ petition
before the High Court. As afore-mentioned, the High Court, vide
nd
judgment dated 22 January, 2008 has dismissed the writ petition of the
appellant, inter alia, observing that onus of establishing a plea of
victimization or that he had completed 240 days of service in the last
calendar year, in order to avail of the benefit of Sections 25F, 25G and
25H of the Act, is on the workman. The High Court held that the order of
4
the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal warranting its
interference.
10. Hence, the present appeals.
11. Mr. Jitendra Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7187-7194 of 2008 and S.L.P. (C) No. 9604 of 2008
while assailing the impugned order contended that in light of the
decisions of this Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. Vs.
1
Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) & Anr. and The Workmen of M/s Firestone
2
Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. The Management & Ors. ,
it is a settled principle that when a domestic enquiry is found to be
irregular or improper or is not at all conducted on the ground that it is not
practical to hold it because of some compelling circumstances, the onus
to prove that the termination was justified is on the management. It was
st
asserted that the order passed by the Labour Court on 31 January, 2006
is per se illegal and therefore, the High Court erred in not reversing the
same.
12. Per contra, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent, urged that the impugned order deserves to be affirmed
1
(2001) 5 SCC 433
2
(1973) 1 SCC 813
5
in light of the decisions of this Court in Manager, Reserve Bank of
3
India, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani & Ors. and Talwara Cooperative Credit
4
and Service Society Limited Vs. Sushil Kumar wherein it has been held
that the burden of proving that the termination was unjustified lies on the
workman. Learned counsel also submitted that since both the parties have
already filed affidavits by way of evidence, these appeals have been
rendered infructuous.
13. In our opinion, in light of the settled legal position on the point, the
judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible. Whilst it is true that
the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 per se are not applicable in an
industrial adjudication, it is trite that its general principles do apply in
proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the
5
case may be. (See: Municipal Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas ).
In any proceeding, the burden of proving a fact lies on the party that
substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue, and not on the party who
6
denies it. (See: Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh ) Therefore, it follows
that where an employer asserts misconduct on the part of the workman
and dismisses or discharges him on that ground, it is for him to prove
3
(2005) 5 SCC 100
4
(2008) 9 SCC 486
5
(2004) 8 SCC 195
6
(2006) 5 SCC 558
6
misconduct by the workman before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour
Court, as the case may be, by leading relevant evidence before it and it is
open to the workman to adduce evidence contra. In the first instance, a
workman cannot be asked to prove that he has not committed any act
tantamounting to misconduct.
14. In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (supra) relied upon by
learned counsel for the appellant, a Constitution Bench of this Court
affirmed the decision of this Court in Shambu Nath Goyal Vs. Bank of
7
Baroda & Ors. , wherein the issue for consideration was as to at what
stage, the management is entitled to seek permission to adduce evidence
in justification of its decision to terminate the services of an employee. It
was held that the right of the employer to adduce additional evidence, in
a proceeding before the Labour Court under Section 10 of the 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. It was observed that:
“The management is made aware of the workman’s contention
regarding the defect 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
7
(1983) 4 SCC 491
7
mind at the earliest stage and file the application for that
purpose without any unreasonable delay.”
15. Similarly, in The Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co.
(supra), this court observed that:
“Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer or if the
enquiry held by him is found to be defective, the Tribunal in
order to satisfy itself about the legality and validity of the order,
had to give an opportunity to the employer and employee to
adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce
evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it is open to
the employee to adduce evidence contra. ” (See also: United
Bank of India Vs. Tamil Nadu Banks Deposit Collectors
8
Union & Anr. ; Engineering Laghu Udyog Employees’ Union
9
Vs. Judge, Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal & Anr.
(emphasis supplied by us)
16. In our opinion, the decisions in Manager, Reserve Bank of India (supra)
and Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited (supra)
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent have no bearing on
the issue at hand in as much as the said decisions deal with the onus of
proof in relation to proving 240 days of continuous service and
entitlement to back wages respectively, for which the claims were made
by the workmen, which is not the case here. In the present case, as stated
above, the assertion to the effect that it was not practical to hold domestic
enquiry to prove the misconduct of the workman was by the employer
8
(2007) 12 SCC 585
9
(2003) 12 SCC 1
8
and therefore, the assertion has to be proved by the employer and not by
the workman.
17. In view of the aforesaid position in law, the inevitable conclusion is that
when no enquiry is conducted before the service of a workman is
terminated, the onus to prove that it was not possible to conduct the
enquiry and that the termination was justified because of misconduct by
the employee, lies on the management. It bears repetition that it is for the
management to prove, by adducing evidence, that the workman is guilty
of misconduct and that the action taken by it is proper. In the present
case, the services of the appellants-workmen having been terminated on
the ground of misconduct, without holding a domestic enquiry, it would
be for the management to adduce evidence to justify its action. It will be
open to the appellants-workmen to adduce evidence in rebuttal.
Therefore, the order passed by the Labour Court, shifting the burden to
prove issue No. 1 on the workmen is fallacious and the High Court
should have quashed it.
18. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed; the impugned
judgments are set aside and the Labour Court is directed to dispose of the
references expeditiously. The appellants will also be entitled to costs,
quantified at ` 10,000/- for each set of appeals.
9
.……………………………………
(D.K. JAIN, J.)
.…………………………………….
(H.L. DATTU, J.)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 29, 2010
AR
1