LexASHOK KUMAR SHARMA versus OBEROI FLIGHT SERVICES
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 602 A ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA v. ~- OBEROI FLIGHT SERVICES i' (Civil Appeal No. 7395 of 2009) B NOVEMBER 6, 2009 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Labour Law: ¥. - c Compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages- Dismissal of workman on a/legation of theft, held by Labour Court though contrary to law, yet, in the circumstances, not unjustified - Division Bench of High Court noticing that no enquiry having been conducted, dismissal of workman without D issuing him charge-sheet or show cause notice was unsustainable - However, the Division Bench did not deem it proper to order re-instatement of workman, and instead (.. ' directed the Management to pay him Rs. 60, 0001- in full and ~ final settlement of claim - HELD: Award of compensation in E lieu of reinstatement and back wages has been held by Supreme Court to be appropriate and in the interest of justice - In the light of the settled legal position, the view of the High Court that monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement of workman would be proper cannot said to be unjustified - ..... However, the compensation in the sum of Rs. 60, 0001- t F awarded by High Court is grossly inadequate - Regard being, had to all relevant facts and circumstances, including the nature of employment and the ~act that the workman was a confirmed employee, compensation of Rs. 2 lac to him by the employer shall meet the ends of justice - Ordered G accordingly. U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Udai Narain .,_.. .... Paney 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 609; Sita Ram & Ors vs Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute 2008 (4) SCR 471; H 602 ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA v. OBEROI FLIGHT 603 SERVICES Singh vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board & A _ _, Anr. 2009 (9) JT 396, relied on. Case Law Reference: 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 609 relied on 2008 (4) SCR 471 relied on 2009 (9) JT 396 relied on para 7 para 8 para 10 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. B 7395 of 2009. c From the Judgment & Order dated 18.3.2008 of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 39 of 2008. Amitabh Chaturvedi, Nikhil Srivastav, Dr. Vipin Gupta for ~ the Appellant. D - • _, Nikhil Goel, Marsook Bajak (for Sheela Goel) for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. In this appeal by special leave, the workman has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court on March 18, 2008 whereby F monetary compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been ordered to be paid by the Management to him in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 3. The Appellant (for short "workman") was employed by Oberoi Flight Services-Respondent (for short "Management") G as a loader on March 10, 1980. Allegedly on August 31, 1986 Dwhile returning from duty, the workman was found carrying 30 KLM soup spoons illegally in his shoe. The workman is said to · have admitted his guilt in writing on August 31, 1986 itself and H 604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A then again on the next day i.e. September 1, 1986. The Management acting on the said admission of guilt by the -~~ workman, vide order dated September 3, 1986 dismissed him from service. Having been unsuccessful in his representation and legal notice to the Management, the workman raised B industrial dispute before the appropriate Government which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Delhi on June 19, 1987. 4. The workman in his statement of claim before the l( . c Labour Court set out that being a union leader, the Management hatched a conspiracy against him for his removal and obtained confession letters under threat and coercion. He also set up the plea that without holding any inquiry and in breach of the principles of the natural justice, the order of D dismissal was passed by the Management. In the written statement, the Management, on the other hand, narrated the circumstances in which the workman had stolen 30 KLM soup/ 't" spoons by carrying them in his shoe. The parties led evidence in support of their respective stand. The Labour Court, after hearing the parties, vide his award dated January· 31, 1996 held E that order of dismissal passed by the Management was contrary to law but at the same time it also held that the dismissal of the workman from the service of the Management was not unjustified. The Labour Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.