COLLECTOR SINGH versus L.M.L. LTD., KANPUR

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 11-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 13 S.C.R. 735 
COLLECTOR SINGH 
v. 
L.M.L. LTD., KANPUR 
(Civil Appeal No. 10125 of 2014) 
NOVEMBER 11, 2014 
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.11A -
Dismissal 
A 
B 
of appellant, a semi-skilled workman in respondent-
C 
company- If disproportionate to the act of misconduct proved 
against the appellant - Allegation that appellant threw jute/ 
cotton waste balls hitting the face of his superior officer and 
a/so abused him in filthy language - Appellant submitted 
apology letter- Labour Court, however, held that termination 0 
of appellant was justified - High Court upheld the award 
passed by Labour Court- Held: Labour Court and the High 
Court did not properly a{:lPreciate tenor of the apology 
Jetter- From the apology letter, it is discernible that appellant 
made admission only with respect to throwing of the jute! 
cotton waste balls by mistake - The letter nowhere stated E 
that appellant was involved in the incident of hurling abuses 
and using filthy language against his superior officer- Mere 
Act of throwing jute/cotton waste balls weighing 5 to 10 gms 
may not by itself lead to imposing punishment of dismissal 
. from service - Considering the totality of the circumstances, 
F 
the punishment of dismissal from service was harsh and 
disproportionate -But, nearly two decades have passed since 
termination appellant and over these years the appellant 
must have been gainfully employed elsewhere - Further, 
appellant has almost reached the age of superannuation -
G 
In such circumstances, there cannot be any order of 
reinstatement and award of /umpsum compensation of 
Rs.5 Lakhs would meet the ends of justice. 
H 
735 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Jurisdiction 
under- Scope-Held: Jurisdiction u/Art. 136 is extraordinary 
and interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by 
the courts below is permissible only in exceptional cases and 
not as a matter of course - Where appreciation of evidence 
B is found to be wholly unsatisfactory or the conclusion drawn 
from the same is perverse in nature, in exercise of the 
jurisdiction under Art. 136, the Supreme Court may interfere 
with the concurrent findings for doing complete justice in the 
case. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N. B. Narawade 
(2005) 3 sec 134 - held inapplicable. 
Dev Singh v. Punjab Tourism Development 
Corporation Ltd. & Anr. (2003) 8 SCC 9; Om 
Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386 
: 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 693; Union of India v. G. 
Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 763: 1997 (3) Suppl. 
SCR 549; Ex-Naik Sardar Singh v. Union of India 
and Ors. (1991) 3 sec 213: 1991 (2) SCR 676; 
Jain Bhagwan v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. 
(2013) 11 SCC 187; Ram Kish an v. Union of India 
& Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 157 : 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 
251; Rama Kant Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh 
& Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 346: 1983 (1) SCR 648 and 
Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd .. 
(1984) 2 SCC 569: 1984 (3) SCR 169 - relied 
on. 
Davalsab Husainsab Mui/a v. North West 
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (2013) 10 
G 
SCC 185 : 2013 (9) SCR 826 - referred to. 
H 
2013 (9) SCR 826' 
c2003) 8 sec 9 
Case Law Reference: 
referred to 
relied on 
Para 6 
Para 11 
COLLECTOR SINGH v. L.M.L. LTD., KANPUR 
737 
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 693 
relied on 
Para 11 
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 549 
relied on 
Para 11 
1191 (2) SCR 676 
relied on 
Para 11 
(2013) 11sec187 
relied on 
Para 12 
1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 251 
relied on 
Para 13 
1983 (1) SCR 648 
relied on 
Para 13 
1984 (3) SCR 169 
relied on 
Para 13 
(2005) 3 sec 134 
held inapplicable 
Para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
10125 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.09.2012 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ 
Petition No. 12157of1997. 
Ms. Daggar Malhotra, Bharat Sangal, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
R. Santhanam,A. P. Sinha, Ms.Abha R. Sharma,Advs. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Whether the punishment of dismissal from service of 
the appellant is disproportionate to the act of misconduct F 
proved against the appellant and whether the concurrent 
findings of the Courts below need to be interfered with are the 
points falling for consideration in this appeal. 
3. Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as G 
follows:- The appellant was worki

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