BIECCO LAWRIE LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 972 · Decided: 28-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 972 
A 
81ECCO LAWRIE LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 245 of 2007) 
JULY 28, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.] 
" 
Labour laws - Dismissal from service - Major misconduct 
• 
by employee-mazdoor - Charge of abusing superiors and 
c negligence on duty - Dismissal order upheld by tribunal - On 
remand, dismissal order set aside by tribunal on ground of 
violation of principles of natural justice - High Court 
upholding the said order- Legality of- Held: Order of tribunal 
.. 
and High Court perverse and illegal - Principle of natural 
0 justice not violated - Employee was given fair and reasonable 
~ 
opportunity of hearing - Charges were precise and specific 
in nature - Employee was aware of charges and admitted 
them - Punishment not harsh in comparison to charges 
leveled against employee - High Court erred in remanding 
E the matter to tribunal for reconsideration when charges were 
found to be proved - Tribunal also erred in reversing its own 
decision on the same evidence - Thus, order of dismissal 
justified - Administrative law - Natural justice. 
y 
Respondent-mazdoor was held guilty of major 
y 
F misconduct and was dismissed from service. The 
industrial tribunal set aside the dismissal order and 
reinstated him with full back wages. The Single Judge 
and the Division Bench of High Court upheld the order. 
G 
The questions which arose for consideration in this 
appeal are whether the principles of natural justice have 
J; 
been violated and the dismissal is vitiated by the same 
and is bad and unjustified; whether the tribunal was 
justified in reversing its own decision subsequently 
H 
972 
BIECCO LAWRIE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF WEST 973 
BENGAL & ANR. 
_...,. 
when there had been no further evidence adduced; and 
A 
whether the High Court was right in interfering with the 
order of dismissal? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Principle of natural justice is attracted 
B 
whenever a person suffers a civil consequence or a 
prejudice is caused to him by an administrative action. 
" 
In other words principle of natural justice is attracted 
.4 
where there is some right which is likely to be affected 
by any act of the administration including a legitimate c 
expectation. It comprises of two fundamental rules of fair 
procedure that-a man may not be a judg.e in his own 
-
cause (nemo judex in re sua) and that a man's defence 
' 
must always be fairly heard. Judgments dealing with the 
administrative decisions proceed on the footing that the 
D 
~ 
presence of bias means the tribunal is improperly 
constituted so that it has no power to determine or decide 
the case and accordingly its decision must be void and 
a nullity. Departmental bias arises when the functions of 
a Judge and the prosecutor are combined in the same 
E 
department as it is not uncommon to find that the same 
department which initiates the matter a!so decides it, 
therefore, at times, department fraternity and loyalty 
J,r 
militates against the concept of fair hearing. The instant 
... 
case might appear to be a case of departmental bias as 
F 
it is persistently lodged by the respondent that the 
Enquiry Officer was biased being a company lawyer and 
had favoured the company in causing miscarriage of 
justice. On facts, the enquiry officer who was also the 
company lawyer cannot be considered as being biased 
G 
and partisan who favoured and was partial towards the 
management of the company. [Para 12] [985-8-D; 985-F-
H; 985-H; 986-A] 
Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 
and Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 640; Hari Khemu Gawali v. The 
H 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A Deputy Commissioner of Police AIR 1956 SC 559; The 
General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' 
Union v. The Managing Director, Kera/a State Cashew 
Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 201, 
referred to. 
B 
Voinet v. Barrett (1885) 55 LJQB 39, referred to. 
1.2. One of the essential ingredients of fair hearing 
is that a person should be served with a proper notice, 
> 
i.e., a person has a right to notice. Notice should be clear 
' 
c and precise so as to give the other party adequate 
information of the case he has to meet and make an 
effective defence. Denial of notice and opportunity to 
respond result in making the administrative decision as 
vi~iated. The adequacy of not!ce is a relative term and 
D must be decided with reference to each ca

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