SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(SC) 290

A.D.KOSHAL, D.A.DESAI, V.R.KRISHNA IYER
Shankar Chakravarti – Appellant
Versus
Britannia Biscuit Company LTD. – Respondent


Advocates:
ANAND PARKASH, C.B.SINGH, L.ARVIND, Mukul Mudgal, P.DAS, P.H.Parekh, V.M.TARKUNDE

Judgement Key Points

What is the proper scope and when should a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal permit or require additional evidence after a domestic enquiry is found defective in penal termination cases under Section 10 or Section 33? What are the correct procedural stages for addressing the validity of a domestic enquiry and the opportunity to adduce additional evidence as established by Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh and Cooper Engineering Ltd.? What are the rights and obligations of the employer and tribunal regarding pleading, requests for additional evidence, and the sequence of issues when assessing termination of service under the Industrial Disputes Act?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the proper scope and when should a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal permit or require additional evidence after a domestic enquiry is found defective in penal termination cases under Section 10 or Section 33?

What are the correct procedural stages for addressing the validity of a domestic enquiry and the opportunity to adduce additional evidence as established by Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh and Cooper Engineering Ltd.?

What are the rights and obligations of the employer and tribunal regarding pleading, requests for additional evidence, and the sequence of issues when assessing termination of service under the Industrial Disputes Act?


Judgment

DESAI, J:- The hollow plea of the employer of an alleged denial of an opportunity (never claim at any stage except in Letters Patent Appeal) to substantiate an alleged misconduct of the workman by evidence alinude has been responsible for dragging a tiny dispute rendering the workman jobless for an unusually long period of more than 7 years to this apex court.

2. Facts now beyond the pale of controversy are few and may be briefly stated. Appellant joined service with the first respondent company (company for short) in August 1963 and was confirmed in March 1964. In October 1970 appellant was drawing a composite salary of Rs. 180/-. An industrial dispute touching the workmen of the company was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, when the events leading to the present appeal occurred. On 1st October, 1970 around 5 p.m. appellant is alleged to have hoisted two red flags atop the Branch Office building simultaneously shouting inflammatory slogans. He is alleged to have threatend the Shift Manager Shree Manik Mukharjee who was on duty at the relevant time. The incident was reported to police. Respondent employer felt aggrieved by such indiscpline exhibited by the appellant an


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top