AMAR CHAKRAVARTY & ORS. versus MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 1142 · Decided: 29-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1142 
AMAR CHAKRAVARTY & ORS. 
V. 
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10135-10142 of 2010 etc.) 
NOVEMBER 29, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 10(1)(c) - Termination 
of service - A/legations of misconduct - Non-holding of 
C domestic enquiry- B.urden of proof - Held: Onus to prove that 
it was not possible to conduct the enquiry and the termination 
was justified on the ground of misconduct by the employee, 
lies on the management by adducing evidence to justify its 
action - Workmen can adduce evidence in rebuttal - Thus, 
D order passed by labour court as upheld by the High Court, 
shifting the burden to prove whether the termination of the 
services of the workmen is justified, is on the workmen, is 
erroneous - Impugned judgments are set aside - Evidence 
Act, 1872. 
E 
There were allegations of grave misconduct against 
the appellants-workmen. The respondent-management 
terminated services of the appellants without holding an 
enquiry. The appellants raised an industrial dispute. The 
State Government referred the matter to the Labour Court 
F under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
The Labour Court shifted the burden on the workmen to 
prove that their termination was not justified. The High 
Court upheld the order passed by the labour court. 
Therefore, the appellants-workmen filed the instant 
G appeals. 
H 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Whilst it is true that the provisions of the 
1142 
AMAR CHAKRAVARTY & ORS. v. MARUTI SUZUKI 1143 
INDIA LTD. 
Evidence Act, 1872 per se are not applicable in an 
A 
industrial adjudication, it is trite that its general principles 
do apply in proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal or 
the Labour Court, as the case may be. In any proceeding, 
the burden of proving a fact lies on the party that 
substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue, and not 
B 
on the party who denies it. Therefore, it follows that 
where an employer asserts misconduct on the part of the 
workman and dismisses or discharges him on that 
ground, it is for him to prove misconduct by the workman 
before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the c 
case may be, by leading relevant evidence before it and 
it is open to the workman to adduce evidence contra. In 
the first instance, a workman cannot be asked to prove 
that he has not committed any act tantamounting to 
misconduct. [Para 13] [1149-B-E] 
1.2 The assertion to the effect that it was not practical 
to hold domestic enquiry to prove the misconduct of the 
workman was by the employer and, therefore, the 
assertion has to be proved by the employer and not by 
D 
the workman. When no enquiry is conducted before the 
E 
service of a workman is terminated, the onus to prove 
that it was not possible to conduct the enquiry and that 
the termination was justified because of misconduct by 
the employee, lies on the management. It is for the 
management to prove, by adducing evidence, that the 
F 
workman is guilty of misconduct and that the action 
taken by it is proper. [Paras 16 and 17] [1151-A-D] 
1.3 In the instant case, the services of the appellants-
workmen having been terminated on the ground of G 
misconduct, without holding a domestic enquiry, it would 
be for the management to adduce evidence to justify its 
action. It will be open to the appellants-workmen to 
adduce evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, the order passed 
by the Labour Court that shifting the burden to prove 
H 
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A whether the termination of the services of the workmen 
is justified, is on the workmen, is fallacious and the High 
Court should have quashed it. The impugned judgments 
are set aside and the Labour Court is directed to dispose 
of the references expeditiously. The appellants would be 
B entitled to costs, quantified at Rs. 10,000/- for each set of 
appeals. [Paras 17 and 18) _[1151-D-F] 
c 
D 
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Siri Niwas (2004) 
8 SCC 195; Anil Rishi Vs. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558 
- relied on. · 
Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore vs. S. Mani 
and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 100; Talwara Cooperative Credit and 
Service Society Limited vs. Sushi/ Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486 
- distinguished. 
· Karnataka 
State Road 
Transport Corpn. 
vs. 
Lakshmidevamma (Smt.) and Anr. (2001) 5 SCC 433; The 
Workmen of Mis Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) 
Ltd. vs. The 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.