Back
1992 Supreme(SC) 19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI AND G.N. RAY, JJ.
Yashvir Singh, Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Modern Food Industry (India) Ltd. and another, Respondents.
S.L.P. (C) No. 11724 of 1991
Decided on 13-1-1992.
The court addressed the issue of a deciding authority acting as a witness in termination proceedings, which potentially violates natural justice, and resolved the dispute by awarding monetary compensation instead of reinstatement.
Headnote:(A) Natural Justice - Termination of service - Deciding authority as a witness - Where the authority who issued the charge-sheet and passed the order of termination was also a witness to the alleged misconduct, the order is challenged on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice, as the authority would be appreciating his own evidence.
(B) Compensation - Reinstatement - In certain cases, the court may choose to put an end to the litigation by directing the payment of adequate compensation to the workman in lieu of granting reinstatement with backwages.
Facts of the case:
A workman was terminated from service following a charge-sheet. The authority responsible for issuing the charge-sheet and passing the termination order was also a witness to the incident, as it was alleged that the workman had stopped the authority's car and misbehaved. The termination was challenged on the basis that the deciding authority's role as a witness tainted the order, violating the principles of natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The court found it appropriate to resolve the matter by directing the payment of monetary compensation to the workman rather than interfering with the termination order to grant reinstatement and backwages.
Issues: Whether the termination order was void due to a violation of the rules of natural justice because the deciding authority was also a witness to the alleged misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised its discretion to settle the dispute by awarding a specific sum as compensation to the workman, thereby avoiding a detailed determination on the validity of the termination order while providing financial relief.
Result: Special Leave Petition disposed of with a direction to pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation to the petitioner.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
labour and employment
-
disciplinary proceedings
- natural justice
-
remedies
- compensation
-
disciplinary proceedings
JUDGMENT
We have heard counsel on both sides and with their consent we proceed to dispose of the matter at the notice stage itself. Mr. Ramamurthi contended that having regard to the fact that the respondent No. 1, who was a witness since it was his car which, it is alleged, the petitioner had stopped and it was with him that he had misbehaved, he ought not to have issued the charge-sheet and at any rate he ought not to have passed the impugned order because to do so would be to appreciate the worth of his own evidence. He further stated that merely because the appellate authority had confirmed the order would not remove the taint which attaches to the order of termination. The order of termination is thus attacked on the ground of violation of the rule of natural justice. The other side would say that since under the standing orders it was respondent No. 1, who was charged with the duty to pass the impugned order, he did so out of necessity and, therefore, the order is not liable to be challenged. After hearing these rival contentions, we thought it proper to put an end to the matter by directing payment of adequate compensation to the workmen but not granting him re-instatement with backwages. We, therefore, do not interfere with the order on condition that Rs. 75,000/- will be paid by way of compensation to the petitioner within a period of one month. The compensation amount may be paid to the petitioner directly. The petitioner will approach the Company on receipt of the letter from the Company in that behalf. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Order accordingly.
For Citation: AIR 1993 SC 961
