Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4856 1999
PETITIONER:
HINDUSTAN ALUMINIUM CORPORATION LIMITED
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SATYA NARAIN SINGH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/11/2000
BENCH:
S.R.Babu, S.N.Variava
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
On the termination of the services of the first
respondent on 27.8.1969 by the appellant an industrial
dispute was raised by the former which was referred for
adjudication to the Labour Court at Gorakhpur. The Labour
Court raised preliminary issues and, inter alia, held that
the inquiry conducted by the appellant-Management in
relation to the alleged mis-conduct is valid, fair and
proper. An argument was raised before the Labour Court that
on the construction of Standing Orders Nos. 21-H and 21-Z
the inquiry was not competent because the Hindalco hospital
where the incident in relation to alleged mis-conduct of
respondent is stated to have taken place is away from the
factory premises and so was not committed within the
premises of the industrial establishment and reliance was
placed in support of this contention on Management of S.R.P.
Tools Ltd, Madras v. Presiding Officer (2), Additional
Labour Court, Madras & Ors., 1974 (29) FLR 416, while the
Management relied upon Moolchandani Electrical & Radio
Industries Ltd. v. Workman, 1974 (30) FLR 1969, a decision
of this Court. The Labour Court held that even if the
mis-conduct has been committed in Hindalco hospital which is
away from the factory premises it cannot be established that
the Standing Orders of the company have been violated and,
therefore, it reached the conclusion that the domestic
inquiry was competent and had been conducted in a fair and
proper manner. That preliminary order was passed on
21.2.1977. Thereafter the Labour Court proceeded to
consider the question of the termination of the workman, the
first respondent herein, and it was held that the
termination of the services of the respondent was not called
for and the punishment imposed upon him resulting in the
termination of his services is not disproportionate to the
charge alleged against him and, therefore, applying the
scope of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act the punishment awarded by the employer should
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
be set aside particularly because the first respondent went
to the hospital to save the life of his colleague on
humanitarian grounds. The Labour Court accepted the
argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that Section
11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act has been inserted in the
Industrial Disputes Act whereas the reference has been made
to the Labour Court under Section 4-K of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which does not contain a
similar provision. On that basis, the Labour Court did not
adjudicate on that aspect of the matter and merely stated
that the punishment awarded to the first respondent is not
proved by the respondent as harsh and disproportionate and
made an award dismissing the claim of the first respondent.
On a writ petition being filed to the High Court, a learned
Single Judge examined the matter and relying upon a decision
of this Court in Krishna District Co-operative Marketing
Society Ltd. v. N.V. Purnachandra Rao & Ors., 1987 (4)
SCC 99, wherein the question was as to whether Section 25-F
of the Central Act would be applicable to a proceeding under
the U.P. Act, it was held by this Court that a special
provision of the Central Act would apply and rights and
liabilities created under the Central Act would over-ride
those created by the State Act in terms of Article 254 of
the Constitution, particularly keeping in view the fact that
the Central Act has been enacted by Parliament after the
enactment of the State Act and both of which have received
the assent of the President. It is not necessary for us,
particularly in the light of the order made by the High
Court, to examine this aspect of the matter and we keep this
question open to be decided, if necessary, at a later stage.
At this stage, it is suffice to say that the matter will
have to be examined in the light of the provisions of
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, as directed by
the High Court.
As regards the findings recorded by the Labour Court
that the punishment imposed on the first respondent is not
disproportionate to the charge levelled against him, the
learned Single Judge of the High Court, after referring to
certain decisions, directed that in view of the incidents
alleged were out side the factory premises, a finding has to
be reached applying Section 11-A of the Central Act. In the
circumstances, the learned Single Judge set aside the award,
remitted the matter to the Labour Court for a fresh decision
in accordance with law and gave certain time frame for
disposal.
Considering the nature of the order made by the High
Court which merely remits the matter for a fresh
consideration by the Labour Court and at this stage of the
proceeding it is not necessary to decide either the question
of law or fact arising in the case, we think, there is no
justification to interfere with the order made by the High
Court. We keep open the questions arising in the case for
consideration at a later stage as and when they may become
necessary.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.