1. Employee dismissed for possessing used tickets in violation of executive instructions — Application for approval under Section 33(2)(b), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 282
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
30th October 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
The Management of Delhi Transport Undertaking, Appellant
Versus
The Industrial Tribunal, Delhi and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 790 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. T. R. Bhasin, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2.
Advocates:
Gopal Singh, T.R.Bhasin
Gopal Singh, T.R.Bhasin
Important Points
Tender of one month's wages satisfies Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Additionally, breach of executive instructions issued under standing orders constitutes misconduct if the standing orders include a general clause covering acts detrimental to the organization's interests.
Subject
Labour Law - Industrial Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33(2)(b) - Dismissal of employee during pendency of industrial dispute - Payment of one month's wages - Proviso to Section 33(2)(b) - Requirement of payment is satisfied by a valid tender of wages before the dismissal becomes effective; employer cannot be faulted if the employee refuses to receive the payment. (Para 4)
(B) Standing Orders - Misconduct - Breach of executive instructions - Where standing orders mandate employees to perform duties entrusted to them and treat activities detrimental to the organization's interests as misconduct, breach of specific executive instructions issued under such authority constitutes misconduct. (Paras 5, 6)
(C) Charge Sheet - Validity - Omission to cite specific standing orders or regulations does not render a charge defective if the facts provided are sufficient to enable the employee to understand the charge and put them on defense. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An employee was found in possession of used tickets in violation of executive instructions. The employer proposed dismissal and sought approval from the tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The tribunal refused approval, holding that the executive instruction was not part of the standing orders and that one month's wages were not paid prior to dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the tender of wages was made before the dismissal order became effective, satisfying the statutory requirement. It also found that the breach of executive instructions fell within the scope of the standing orders' general misconduct provisions.
Issues: Whether the tribunal was justified in refusing approval for dismissal on the grounds of non-payment of one month's wages and the alleged absence of the specific prohibition in the standing orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) does not require actual payment if a tender is made, as an employer cannot force an employee to accept payment. Furthermore, executive instructions issued under the authority of standing orders are binding, and a general clause covering detrimental activities is sufficient to encompass such breaches.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Standing Orders - Misconduct - Breach of executive instructions - Where standing orders mandate employees to perform duties entrusted to them and treat activities detrimental to the organization's interests as misconduct, breach of specific executive instructions issued under such authority constitutes misconduct. (Paras 5, 6)
(C) Charge Sheet - Validity - Omission to cite specific standing orders or regulations does not render a charge defective if the facts provided are sufficient to enable the employee to understand the charge and put them on defense. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
An employee was found in possession of used tickets in violation of executive instructions. The employer proposed dismissal and sought approval from the tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The tribunal refused approval, holding that the executive instruction was not part of the standing orders and that one month's wages were not paid prior to dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the tender of wages was made before the dismissal order became effective, satisfying the statutory requirement. It also found that the breach of executive instructions fell within the scope of the standing orders' general misconduct provisions.
Issues: Whether the tribunal was justified in refusing approval for dismissal on the grounds of non-payment of one month's wages and the alleged absence of the specific prohibition in the standing orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the proviso to Section 33(2)(b) does not require actual payment if a tender is made, as an employer cannot force an employee to accept payment. Furthermore, executive instructions issued under the authority of standing orders are binding, and a general clause covering detrimental activities is sufficient to encompass such breaches.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether dismissal was valid despite executive instructions not being explicitly in standing orders and whether one month's wages were legally tendered under Section 33(2)(b). (Para 1 , 5 , 7 )
3. Tender of wages suffices for Section 33(2)(b) compliance; executive instructions issued under standing orders are binding and breaches constitute misconduct under general detrimental activity clauses. (Para 4 , 6 )
4. Requirement of payment of wages under Section 33(2)(b) is satisfied by a valid tender; executive instructions are enforceable if linked to standing orders. (Para 4 , 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — Tribunal order set aside — Approval granted for the dismissal order. (Para 8 )
6. Does the requirement to pay one month's wages under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act require actual receipt by the employee?
No. The proviso is satisfied if the employer tenders the amount before the dismissal becomes effective, as the employer cannot force an employee to receive payment. (Para 4 )
7. Can a breach of executive instructions constitute misconduct if the instructions are not explicitly incorporated into the formal standing orders?
Yes, provided the standing orders contain a general provision requiring employees to perform entrusted duties and a broad misconduct clause covering activities detrimental to the organization's interests. (Para 6 )
8. Must a disciplinary charge explicitly cite the specific standing order or regulation violated to be valid?
Not necessarily. A charge is valid if it contains sufficient particulars to enable the employee to understand the accusation and put themselves on defense. (Para 7 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J.:- This appeal by special leave arises from a dispute between the Delhi Transport Undertaking and its employee Shri Hari Chand, a former conductor of one of its omnibuses, now Assistant Traffic Inspector. By this appeal the Delhi Transport Undertaking impugns an award of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi dated April 20, 1962. The facts of the case are as follows : Hari Chand was a conductor on omnibus No. 484 of route No. 21 on March 28, 1960. His omnibus was checked at Kashimiri Gate and it was found that he had on his person five used tickets of 5 np. and six used tickets of 10 np. denominations. This was prohibited by cl. (12) of the Executive Instructions dealing with the duties of conductors, and exposed a guilty conductor to the penalty of dismissal. After enquiry into this conduct the charge was held proved, and on the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer the Traffic Manager proposed to dismiss him from October 31, 1961. As this occurred during the pendency of an industrial dispute the Undertaking by an application dated October 28, 1961 sought the approval of the Tribunal to the proposed order of dismisal u/ S. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It appears that a memorandum was issued on Oct. 30, 1961 informing Hari Chand of the order of dismissal and intimating him that he was to be paid one months s wages as required by S. 33(2)(b) of the Act and he should report immediately to the Accounts Officer at the Head Office to receive the payment and to surrender his uniform, badge, identity card, etc. Hari Chand either did not appear to receive payment or when he appeared he was not paid the amount. There is some dispute on this fact to which we shall refer presently. In his turn he filed a complaint under S. 33-A of the Act on November 3, 1961 complaining inter alia that his wages for one month had not been paid. The same day his one months s wages were remitted to him by the Undertaking by Money Order. The complaint of Hari Chand was dismissed by the Tribunal and as there is no appeal against that order we need not refer to it. The Tribunal after hearing the parties delined to accord its approval and dismissed the application. The Tribunal held that action under Executive Instruction No. 12 could not be taken because this Executive Instruction was not made a part of the Standing Order and in the Standing Orders governing the conduct of employees in this Undertaking there was no provision that the possession of used tickets amounted to misconduct of an offence on the part of the conductor. The Tribunal also held that then was no satisfactory proof that one months s wages were actually paid or could be treated as having been tendered prior to the coming into operation of the order of dismissal on October 31, 1961, as required by S. 33(2)(b) of the Act. The Delhi Transport Undertaking questions both these conclusions and the appeal involves only these points.
2. To understand the true legal position it is necessary to refer to some provisions of law under which the Delhi Transport Authority; which was the same as the present Delhi Transport Undertaking, was established and under which the Undertaking no now functions. The Delhi Road Transport Authority Act, 1950 came into operation from March 27, 1950. By that Act a statutory Corporation under the name of the Delhi Road Transport Authority was constituted. By S.39 of the Act it is provided that the Central Government may, after consultation with the Authority give general instructions, including directions relating to the conditions of service and training of the employees their wages and the reserves which the Authority must maintain, etc. Under S. 53, power to make regulations is conferred on the Authority for the administration of the affairs of the Authority and for carrying out its functions under the Act and in particular for providing for the conditions of appointment and service of the servants of the Authority other than some office
