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

2014 Supreme(SC) 1297

T.S.THAKUR, VIKRAMAJIT SEN
Stanzen Toyotetsu India P. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Girish V. – Respondent


Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :S.S. Ramdas, Sr. Adv., Shanta Kumar Mahale, Rajesh Mahale, Pradip Sawakar and Kanakraj, Advocates.
For the Respondent:E.C. Vidya Sagar, Kheyali Sarkar and Ananthram, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

There is no legal bar to the conduct of disciplinary proceedings and a criminal trial simultaneously against an employee in respect of the same incident. (!) [1000702290007][1000702290009][1000702290010][1000702290012][1000702290015]

Disciplinary proceedings may be stayed pending conclusion of the criminal trial only if the criminal charges are grave, involve complicated questions of law and fact, and their continuance would prejudice the employee's defence in the criminal case; gravity of charges alone is insufficient. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000702290012][1000702290015][1000702290016]

Courts must balance the need for a fair criminal trial against the employer's and employee's interest in expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, which cannot be stayed indefinitely or unduly delayed. (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000702290012][1000702290014][1000702290015][1000702290017]

Where criminal trials are likely to be prolonged (e.g., due to large number of accused/witnesses, slow pace, or adjournments), trial courts must expedite proceedings (e.g., conclude within one year, fortnightly adjournments, accused cooperation required), failing which disciplinary proceedings must resume and conclude without further stay.[1000702290017][1000702290018]


JUDGMENT :

T.S. Thakur, J.

Leave granted. The short question that falls for determination in these appeals is whether the High Court so also the Courts below were right in holding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Appellant-company against its employees (Respondents herein) ought to remain stayed pending conclusion of the criminal case instituted against the Respondents in respect of the very same incident.

2. The Appellant company is engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts in the name and style of M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. while the Respondents are workmen engaged by the Appellant in connection with the said business. It is not in dispute that the employees of the Appellant-company including the Respondents are governed by Standing Orders certified under Industrial Employees (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

3. The Appellant's case is that on 19th March, 2011 at about 10.30 p.m. the Respondents with the help of other Trade Union functionaries stage managed an accident making it appear as if an employee by the name of Mr. Kusumadhara had slipped and fallen in the press area. The incident was, it is alleged, used as a ruse by the Respondents who rushed to

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