Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 677

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. RAVEENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
M/s. Tirupati Jute Industries P. Ltd. & Another - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Others - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2429 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP [C] No.26444 of 2005) With
C.A. No. 2583 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No.26446 of 2005), C.A. No. 2584 of 2009 (@ SLP (C) No.26456 of 2005) & C.A. No. 2585 of 2009 (@ SLP(C) No.26449 of 2005)
Date of Judgment : 13-04-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:K.K. Viswanathan, Dipak Kumar Jena, Minakshi Ghosh Jena, Advocates. For the Respondents:Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma, Irshad Ahmad, Abhijeet Chatterjee, Subodh K. Pathak, Shashi Ranjan, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, D.N. Goburdhan, Pinky Anand, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Issue not raised before Labour tribunal cannot be raised before High Court for the first time.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice – Judicial review – Labour law – Non-compliance with Standing order – Order of dismissal – Workmen not raising issue of non-compliance with standing order before Tribunal – Management not having opportunity to place its case –Issue raised by workmen before High Court for the first time – High accepting the same without giving opportunity to the management to adduce evidence – Not remitting the matter to Tribunal and setting aside dismissal orders – High Court order without evidence – Not tenable. (Para 12)
       (b) Labour law – Dismissal – Reinstatement – Dismissal of workmen – High Court finding charges proved – Setting aside order of dismissal on technical ground of absence of approval under standing order 14(e) – Workmen reached age of superannuation long ago – Supreme Court directing payment of lump sum back wages – Constitution of India – Article 142. (Para 13)
       Facts of the case:
       The appellants were dismissed from service for abusing, assaulting and keeping their superior officers in wrongful confinement as also threatening them of dire consequences if their charge sheet-cum-suspension order were not withdrawn.
       The Industrial Tribunal directed reinstatement of the workmen with full back-wages from the date of their dismissal till the date of reinstatement.
       Before the Single Judge of the High Court the workmen however raised a fresh contention that their orders of dismissal were illegal as they were not approved by the Manager of the establishment or the employer as required by Standing Order 14(e).
       Single Judge quashed the orders of dismissal for want of approval under Standing Order 14(e) and directed that the workmen be reinstated with all consequential benefits as per the award of the Industrial Tribunal.
       The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court order is without evidence.
       Result:
       Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :-

R.V. Raveendran, J.

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel. The appeals involve a common question. Kashinath, Keshab Lal Shaw, Shambu Nath and Bhupen Lal (the fourth respondent in the four appeals) were workmen of the appellant.

2. The first three appeals relate to a charge-sheet dated 7.6.1990 issued to Kashinath, Keshab Lal Shaw and Shambu Nath alleging that on 2.6.1990, they along with some other workmen kept the General Manager of the company (S. R. Singh) under wrongful confinement, misbehaved with him and used filthy language and threatened to assault him physically if the charge-sheet cum suspension earlier issued to some workmen was not withdrawn. It was also alleged that on 6.6.1990 the said workmen again kept the General Manager (S.R. Singh) under wrongful confinement in the Spinning Department and later at the Mill office and threatened him with dire consequences if the charge-sheet cum suspension in respect of one Jayaram was not withdrawn immediately; and that they also used filthy language against him, shouted derogatory slogans and even prevented him from attending to calls of nature. An enquiry was held into those charges and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 16.12.1990 holding them guilty of the charges. Thereafter by orders dated 21.12.1991, the appellant informed the said three workmen that the management had considered and accepted the proceedings and findings of the Enquiry Officer, and having found that there were no extenuating circumstances, had decided to dismiss them from service for proved misconduct with effect from that date.

3. The facts in the last appeal relating to Bhupen Lal are similar. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 14.5.1991 alleging that earlier on the same day, he was sitting idle and smoking in the vice room of the spinning department, and when he was asked by the Chief Engineer to attend to his job, he failed to comply; and later, he followed the Chief Engineer to the batching line and started abusing him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences and also tried to physically assault the Chief Engineer but was prevented by other workmen and the said acts constituted a misconduct. After holding an inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 7.7.1991 holding the fourth respondent guilty of the charge. Thereafter the General Manager by letter dated 19.7.1991 informed the workman that the management has agreed with the said findings of the Enquiry Officer and there were no extenuating circumstances in his favour and consequently he was dismissed from service with effect from that date.

4. Disputes were raised in regard to the said four dismissals and the appropriate government referred the disputes as to whether the dismissal of the workmen was justified and to what relief they were entitled, to the Industrial Tribunal. Though the appellant-employer initially appeared in the reference cases before the Industrial Tribunal, it did not subsequently contest the matters. The Industrial Tribunal, by separate awards accepted the contention of the workmen that they were not given due opportunity to contest the enquiry and therefore held that the orders of dismissal were opposed to the principles of natural justice. Consequently it directed reinstatement of the workmen with full backwages from the date of their dismissal till the date of reinstatement.

5. The four awards were challenged by the management in a common batch of writ petitions (WP No.1941-44/1998) contending that the enquiry was fair and proper and adequate opportunity was given to the employees. The workmen however raised a fresh contention at the hearing before the learned Single Judge that their orders of dismissal were illegal as they were not approved by the Manager of the establishment or the employer as required by Standing Order 14(e) which reads thus :

"No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and is giv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 677

IMPORTANT POINTIssue not raised before Labour tribunal cannot be raised before High Court for the first time.

IMPORTANT POINT
Issue not raised before Labour tribunal cannot be raised before High Court for the first time.