CALCUTTA DOCK LABOUR BOARD versus JAFFAR IMAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 22-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
0 
D 
E 
F 
CALCUTTA DOCK LABOUR BOARD 
11. 
JAFFAR IMAM AND OTHERS 
March 22, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. WANCHOO AND 
V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Natural Justice-Detention under Preventive 
Detention Act-
Termination· of service based on such detention-Validity. 
The respondents had been detained u"'der the Preventive Deten-
tion Act. On their release theiir employer-the appellant-Board, 
commenced disciplinary proceedings and 
show cause notices 
why their services should not be· terminated on the principal ground 
that they had been detained for acts prejudicial to the .maintenance 
of public order. Not being satisfied with their answers, the appellant 
terminated their servi9es. The respondents' appeals to the Chairman 
of the appellant-Board were dismissed. Thereupon, the respondents 
tiled writ petitions in the High Court, challenging the orders on the 
grounds that reasonable opportunity was not given to them, and that 
even the relevant statutory provisions had been contravened. The 
petitions were dismissed, but were allowed by a Division Bench on 
appeal. 
In the apveal to this Court, 
HELD: If the appellants wanted to 
take disciplinary action 
against respondents on the ground that they were guilty of miscon-
duct, it was absolutely essential that the appellant should have held 
a proper enquiry instead of equating the detention to a conviction by 
2riminal Court. At this enquiry, reasonable opportunity should have 
been given to the respondents to show cause and before reaching its 
conclusion, the appellant was bound to lead evidence 
against the 
respondents, and give them a reasonable chance to test the evidence 
in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Therefore, the Court 
of appeal was right in taking the view that in the departmental en-
quiry which the appellant held against the respondents it was not 
open to the appellant to act on suspicion, and inasmuch as the appel-
lant's decision was based only upon the detention orders and nothing 
else, there could be little doubt that the said conclusion was based 
on suspicion and nothing more. [ 459E-H] 
Case law referred to : 
G 
An obligation to hold such an enquiry is also imposed on the em-
ployer by cl. 36(3) of the Calcutta Dock Workers (Regulation of Em-
ployment) Scheme, 1951, and cl. 45(6) of the Scheme of- 1956. 
[459G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JurusmCTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 569 to 
571 of 1964. 
B 
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated August 4, 1961 
of the Calcutta High Court in Appeals from Original Orders Nos. 
22. 29 and 30 of 1959. 
B. Sen and S. N. Mukheriee, for the appellants. 
K. R. Chaudhuri, for the respondents. 
453 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
'(1965] 3 S.O.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar,' C. J. These three appeals arise out of 
writ petitions filed by the three respondents, Jaffar 
Bnnda-
ban Nayak and Jambu Patra, respectively on the Ongmal Side of 
the Calcutta High Court against the appellant, the Calcutta Dock 
Labour Board. Each one of the respondents challenged the validity 
of t)ie order passed by the appellant, terminating his employment 
as a registered dock worker with the appellant, on the ground that 
the said order was illegal and inoperative. The basis on which the 
impugned orders were challenged was that the enquiry which had 
been held before passing the said orders had not afforded to the 
respondents a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and as 
such, the principles of natural justice had not been followed and 
even the relevant statutory provisions had been contravened. The 
writ petitions filed by Jaffar Imam and Jambu Patra were heard by. 
Sinha, J., whereas the writ petition filed by Bridaban Nayak was 
heard by P.B. Mukherji, J. The learned single Judges who heard 
these respective writ petitions substantially took the same view and 
rejected the contentions raised by the respondents. In the result, the 
writ petitions were dismissed. 
Against these decisions, the respondents preferred appeals 
befol'e a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The Division 
Bench has allowed the appeals and has issued an appropriate writ 
directing that the impugned orders by which the employment of 
the respondents was terminated by the appellant should be quashed. 
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the 
said High Court and it is with the certificate thus granted to it that 
it has come to this Court in appeal. 
It appears that 

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