LexASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. ETC. versus T.C. SHRIVASTAVA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
361 ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. E.TC. v. T.C. SHRIVASTAVA & ORS. March 29, 1984 B [V.D. TULZAPURkAR AND R.S.' PATHAK, JJ.] Industrial Ernploynient (Standing Orders) Art, 1946-Standing Orde1·s-Certified Standing Order. No. Ji-Pra~·iding that all disn1issal orders shall be passed by the Manager or A Cring A1anager who· shall do so after giving the accus~d an cppot· tunity to o_ffer any exp!anation-Jr:terpreation of-IVhether co11te1nplates sei:ond ;'.) opportunity to" workman aftfi· conclusion of ehquiry and before inflicting pu~ish· n1ent of dis1r1isSal_.:._Whether enquiry gets vitiated in absence of such opportunitjl. · Fol.Jr workmen of the appellant company in Civil Appeal No. 209/73 \Vere charged for mis-conduct as defined ·in Standing Order No. 16. The enquiry -Officer found them guilty of the charges .• on the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report and after looking into the previous record of the workmen, the' General Manager dismi~sed theITi. On a dispute having been raised it was referred to the arbitrator, first respondent, un<ler section lOA of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The arbjtr<itor held that the enquiry which was otherwise fair and valid was vi~iatep because no secOnd opportunity was given to the workrrien be~ fore disrcissing them as required by the Standing Order No: 17. The Arbitratot set aside the dismissal of two workmen and confinTied that of-the other hvo: The managem!nt and the- workn1en challenged the award in the ·High Court by· two writ petitions. lfhe High Court cor,firmed· the. a·,vard arid di_smissed both lhe writ petltions. Hence these appeals by management .and the workmen. Allowing the app~al of the managcn1cnt and dismissing that of the work- men. IIELD: Under Standing Order No. 17 no second _opportunity of showing cause on the question of punishment is contemplated. [3670] Neither. under the ordinary Jaw of the land nor under industrial law a second~opportunity 'to show cause against the propos~d punishment is nece'isary. This of course, does nOt n1ean th1t the sta'nding order may not. provide far it but unless the ·standing order provide for it either expressly or by necessary iin'pl!cation, no enquiry which is otherwise fair and ~alid Will be vitiated by non-affording of such opportunity. 13698-D] Standing Ordef No. 17 provides that a worker mii.y be suspended, fined or I> E F G dismissed if found guilty of mis-conduct as defined in St~nding Order No. 16. . ., Para 3 of Standing Order No. 17 says that "all dismissal orders shall be passed by the Manager or Acting Man.ager who shall do so after ·giving the accu<ed an H opportunity to Offer any explanation." The question is whether para 3 provides for such second opportunity ~eing given to the delinquent ~ The words ''all dis~ F II 362 SUP.REME COURT REPORTS (198~] 3 S.R.C. missal orders shall be passed by ihe Manager Ofter giving the accused an opportunity to any offer explanation" in para 3 of S~anding _Order No. 17 are wholly inappro"':.. p'tiate to convey the idea of a second hearing or opportunity On the que'stion of punbhment but appropriate in th~ contl!Xt of seeking an 61Xplanation in regard to the· alleged mis-conduct charged against hin1: An 'explanation• is to be call· ed from the 'accused' which suggests that the _sam.e is to be called for prior to the recording of a finding that the. dl!linquent is guilty of mis-conduct ; W: is the alleged mis~conduct that is. to be -explftincd by him and not the proposed punish· ment. On a plain reading of the relevant words no second opportunity of 5how· . ing cause against the. proposed punish1nent is conten1plated either exprcsS?y or . by necessary implication. In other word<>, it is'.Ctear that the opportunity spoken of by para 3 of Standing Order No. 17 is the opportuni.ty to be given to the delin9i1ent to meeft~e charges framed against hin1. Further, since the instant Stan~ng Order \Vas certified prior· to the enunciation of the law by. Courts regarding the· observance of the principles' of natural justice such as i-;suance of a· charge-sheet, ·holding vf an inquiry, opportunity to lead evidence, etc. It ~ere~y contains a bald provision for 'giving tl):e accu~ed an oppOrtunity to offer any explanation'. In Other W;Jrd3, diff::re_nt stages in do1nestic inquiry \vere never in the contemplation of the framers.<tof the Standing Order. That being the posilion it would be difficuh to attritbute any in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.