D. C. ROY versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL COURT, INDORE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 801 · Decided: 23-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
} 
.. 
D. C. ROY 
v. 
80 1 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL 
COURT, INDORE AND OTHERS 
March 23, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
Labour Law-Dismissal of employee after dotnestic enquiry-Enquiry found 
by LaboW' Court to be vitiated but order of disn1issal held justified on evidence, 
adduced before it-Whether order of dismissal relates back to the date of the 
original order of dis1nissal. 
The Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employn1ent (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, 
Standard Standing Order 12(b )-Major n1isconduct, what is. 
When the flying squad checked a bus of the State Road Transport Corpora-
tion, it was found that the appellant, who was a ticket-examiner of the Corpora-
tion ;ind whose duty was to check whether all the passengers had paid the fare 
and whether the conductor had i&sued ticket;s to the passengers, was on the 
bus; and that. though all the passengers in the bus had paid their fares the 
conductor had not issued 9t tickets. 
If the appellant were so minded, he 
could easily have detected the conductor's misconduct. The appellant \Vas 
charged with the breach of Standard Standing Order 12 (b) under the Madhya 
Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, which governed 
the matter, and he was dismissed after a domestic enquiry. On his application 
t~nder s. 31, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, the Labour Court held 
that the enquiry was defective as it infringed principles of natural justice, but 
C'1me to the conclusion, after considering the evidence adduced before it by 
the parties, that the dismissal was justified. 
The appellant's revision to the 
industrial Court and writ petition in the High Court were dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the appellant that : ( 1) the 
charge did not amount to a 'major misconduct' under the Standing Orders; and 
(2) the Labour Court, having found that there \Vas no proper domestic enquiry, 
should have ordered payment of \\'ages till the date of the decision by the 
Labour Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : ( 1) Standard Standing Order 12(b) provides that "theft. fraud or 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the undertaking" shall 
F 
amount tO a major misconduct on the part of the employee. The appellant 
•Db\1iouSly colluded with the conductor in depriving the Corporation 
of 
its 
legitimate earnings. The appellant, having thus acted dishonsetly in connection 
v..·ith the business of the Corporation, was clearly guilty of a major mis~onduct. 
[803G-804CJ 
(2) In a case where the domestic enquiry does not suffer from any defect, 
so serious or fundamental as to make it non est, the award of the Labour 
CouJt, based on the evidente produced before it relates back to the date when 
G 
the order of dismissal was passed on the termination of the domesti-: enquiry; 
and so, the appellant was not entitled to any back wages. 
[807 B-C] 
P.H. Kalya11i v. Mis. Air France Calcutta (1964] S.C.R. 104, followed. 
The observation in the Hotel linperial case f1960j 1 S.C.R. 476, 487, that 
in the Phulbari Tea Estate case [1960] 1 S.C.R. 32, it was held that in a case 
where the employer makes good the defects in the domestic enquiry by producing· 
necessary evidence before the Industrial Tribunal, the employer "will have to 
H 
pay the wages up to the date of the award of the Tribunal" even if the award 
went in favour of the employer, is not correct. 
Jn the Phulbari Tea Estate\ 
case, the employers made no aUempt to make good the defect in the domestic 
enquiry by producing necessary evidence before the Tribunal with the result 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
802 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 3 $,C.R. 
that the Tribunal, which found that the enquiry was vitiated, had no evidence 
before it. to examine the legality or propriety of the order of dismissal. It 
was in that context that instead of ]!eing re-instated, the employee was given 
the alternative relief of compensation by payment of wages. [805F-806C] 
Mis. Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan [1959] 2 SCR 836 
explained and distinguished. 
• 
An enauiry blatantly and consciously violating principles of natural justice 
so as to amount to a pretence J]lay, however, be equated with a total absence 
of an enquiry so as to exclude the application of the 'relation back' doctrine. [807 
C-DJ 
ClVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 466 of 1970. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgme

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