http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 9

PETITIONER:

WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD AND ANR

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/12/1984

BENCH:

DESAI, D.A.

BENCH:

DESAI, D.A.

KHALID, V. (J)

CITATION:

1985 AIR 251 1985 SCR (2) 428

1984 SCC Supl. 554 1984 SCALE (2)927

CITATOR INFO :

RF 1985 SC 722 (4)

R 1986 SC1571 (58,67)

E&F 1991 SC 101 (5,20,88,174,195,223,239,263,2

ACT:

Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Schedule 2 Item No. 3

and Schedule 2 Item 6.

Public Scctor Undertaking-Standing Order No. 32-

General Manager empowered to dismiss workman without holding

an enquiry if ’inexpedient or against the interests of

security to continue to employ the workman-Such Standing

Order whether violative of the principles of natural

justice-Dismissal of employee without holding domestic

enquiry under the Standing Order Whether valid, legal and

permissible.

Constitution of India 1950 Article 311(Z) provisos (b)

and (c).

Power of dismiss civil servant without holding

inquiry-When arises- Introduction of safeguard-That

authority must specify reasons why not reasonable

practicable to holding inquiry.

Practice and Procedure-Labour disputes-Adjudication

of-Dismissal of employee-Decision of employer to dispense

with domestic enquiry questioned- Deputy of employer to

satisfy the court that holding of enquiry would be counter

productive or cause irreparable and irreversible damage.

HEADNOTE:

Standing Order 31 of the 1st Respondent/Public Sector

Undertaking prescribed a detailed procedure for dealing with

cases of misconduct; and for imposing major penalty, the

employer had to draw up a chargesheet and give an

opportunity to the delinquent workman to make his

representation within 7 days. If the allegations were

controverted, an enquiry had to be held by an officer to be

nominated by the management and in such an enquiry

reasonable opportunity of explaining and defending the

alleged misconduct had to be given to the workman.

Suspension of the delinquent workman pending enquiry was

also permitted. At the end of the enquiry, if the charges

were held proved, and it was provisionally decided to impose

a major penalty, tho delinquent workman bad to be afforded a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 9

further reasonable opportunity to represent why the penalty

should not be imposed on him.

Standing Order 32 provided for a special procedure in

case of a workman was convicted for a criminal offence in a

court of law or where the General Manager was satisfied for

reasons to be recorded in writing that it was inexpedient or

against the interests of security to continue to employ the

workmen’, viz., the workman could be removed or dismissed

from service without following the procedure laid down in

Standing Order No. 31.

429

The appellant an Assistant in the 1st Respondent-

undertaking was A removed from service on the ground that it

was no longer expedient to employ him. The management

dispensed with the departmental enquiry, after looking into

the secret report of one of their officers that the

appellant had misbehaved with the wife of an employee and

that a complaint in respect thereof had been lodged with the

police.

In the reference to the Industrial Tribunal, the

Tribunal held that as the employer dispensed with the

disciplinary enquiry in exercise of the power conferred by

Standing Order 32, it could not be said that the dismissal

from service was not justified, and that if there were

allegations of misconduct, the employer was quite competent

to pass an order of removal from service without holding any

enquiry any in view of the provisions contained in Standing

Order 32, and reje