Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. BHARGAVA AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Management of the Northern Railway Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jodhpur, Appellant
Versus
Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan-Jaipur and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 496 of 1965,
D/-27-1-1967
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. L. Gosain, Senior Advocate, (M/s S. C. Malik, S. K. Mehta and K .L. Mehta, Advocates with him), for Appellant; M/s R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, Advocates of M/s Ramamurthi and Co., and M/s Marudhar Mridul and Mohan Lal Calla, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - Removal of Employee - Enquiry - Principles of Natural Justice - Vague Charges - Opportunity to Show Cause - Reinstatement.
Fact of the Case:
Kanraj Mehta, an employee of the Northern Railway Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jodhpur, was served with a charge-sheet containing five charges, including instigating and conspiring to paralyse the working of the Society, disobedience of orders, and carrying vilifying propaganda. Kanraj requested to be represented by a Railway or trade union official at the enquiry, but his request was denied. He refused to participate in the enquiry and the Committee of Enquiry submitted its report finding him guilty of the charges. The Vice-Chairman of the Society issued a show-cause notice to Kanraj, who requested copies of the enquiry proceedings and findings. The Vice-Chairman refused, and Kanraj was removed from service. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of removal, holding that Kanraj was justified in demanding copies of the documents and that the charges were vague.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of removal. The charges against Kanraj were vague and he was not given an adequate opportunity to meet them. The subsequent show-cause notice issued by the Vice-Chairman was the only opportunity which could have satisfied the requirement of principles of natural justice. The Court also held that it was not appropriate to interfere with the Tribunal's order directing reinstatement of Kanraj, as fresh proceedings for his dismissal were already underway.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of removal of Kanraj Mehta? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the reinstatement of Kanraj Mehta?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The charges against Kanraj Mehta were vague and he was not given an adequate opportunity to meet them. The subsequent show-cause notice issued by the Vice-Chairman was the only opportunity which could have satisfied the requirement of principles of natural justice. 2. It was not appropriate to interfere with the Tribunal's order directing reinstatement of Kanraj Mehta, as fresh proceedings for his dismissal were already underway.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Judgement
BHARGAVA, J. : The appellant in this appeal, brought up by special leave, is the Northern Railway Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") which is an Association of the employees of the Northern Railway at Jodhpur registered in 1920 under the Co-operative Societies Act. The Society had in its employment 10 or 11 persons including Kanraj Mehta, the Head Clerk, Madho Lal, the Accountant, and three other Clerks, A. C. Sharma, V. D. Sharma and G. S. Sexena. At a meeting of the Committee of Management held on 6th April 1956, it was decided to hold the 36th and 37th Annual General Meeting of the Shareholders for years 1953-54 and 1954-55 on 28th April 1956, i. e., after a period of about 22 days. Thereafter, Kanraj Mehta, the Head Clerk, on 8th April 1956, applied for leave on medical grounds, having submitted a certificate from a registered Vaid. Initially, the application for leave was for four days, but, by subsequent applications, he continued to extend his leave up to 2nd May 1956. The other four Clerks, mentioned above, also put in applications between 12th and 15th April 1956 on similar Medical Certificates and continued their leave up to dates falling between 30th April and 4th May 1956. The industrial dispute decided by the award, against which the present appeal is directed, related to four of these Clerks-Kanraj Mehta, A. C. Sharma, V. D. Sharma and G. S. Saxena, against whom the Society decided to take disciplinary action. The case of the Society was that these persons had conspired to paralyse the working of the Society at the time of the impending Annual General Meeting on 28th April 1956, by collectively submitting sickness certificate. In the case of Kanraj Mehta, the Society issued a letter in response to his application for leave directing him to attend the Railway Dispensary at 7.45 hrs on 20th April 1956, and asking him to report to Dr. B. P. Mathur for medical examination. Kanraj did not comply with this direction and continued to send further applications for leave accompanied by the certificates of the Vaid. His leave applications were never actually sanctioned, but he was allowed to resume duty after the expiry of the leave asked for by him in his last application, i.e., on 3rd May 1956. Then on the 19th May 1956 the Society issued a charge-sheet against Kanraj Mehta containing five charges which are produced below :-
"(i) To instigate and conspire to paralyse the working of the Society at the time of the impending Annual General Meeting on 28th April 1956 by collectively submitting sick certificates..
(ii) Disobedience of orders in not attending for Medical Examination vide Hony. Secretary s letter No. CCS/Est of 19th April 1956 which goes to show that you were not prepared to face the medical examination as you had pretended to be sick.
(iii) Taking active part in the issue and distribution of certain leaflets issued against the Management of the Society.
(iv) Carrying vilifying propaganda in connection with the elections of the Society at the Annual General Meeting on 28th April 1956.
(v) Instigating the depositors to with draw their deposits from the Society and thus undermining the very existence of the Institution."
In the charge-sheet, Kanraj was asked to show cause within seven days why he should not be dismissed from service or punished with any lesser penalty. Charge-sheets were also served on the other employees mentioned above. Since in this appeal we are only concerned with the case of Kanraj, we need give details of the facts relating to his case only.
2. On 25th May 1956, Kanraj sent his reply to the charge-sheet. In that reply, he took the plea that there were no disciplinary rules framed and issued for the employees of the Society, and added that, if the rules were being enforced on the analogy of the Railway Rules, he would request the Secretary of the Society to let him know what offence he had committed and how that offence had been constitute
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
