D.K. YADAV versus J.M.A. INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 930 · Decided: 07-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D.K. YADAV 
v. 
J.M.A. INDUSTRIES LTD. 
MAY 7,1993 
[KULDIP SINGH, V. RAMASW AMI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 14 and 21-Rigltt of private employer to tenninate service under 
certified standing order, without holding rµiy domestic enqu.iry-Whetlter viola-
tive of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights-Held: Since termina-
tion of service results in deprivation of right to livelihood, it is to be effected in 
accordance with just.fair and reasonable procedure. 
Article 141-Precedents-Reconsideration of on new grounds-Whether & 
D 
when permissible. 
E 
F 
G 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Sections 25F, 25FF and 25FFF-Retrenchment under Certified Standing 
Orders-Whether attracts principles of natural justice-Whether employer's 
action to be fair, just and reasonable. 
Section 2(00)-Retrenchment-Meaning and scope of 
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: 
Section 5..:_cert(fied Standing Orders-Absentefrom duty- Deemed ter-
mination of service wit/tow enquiry or opportunity of !tearing-Validity 
of-Whether attract principles o{natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the . 
Constitution-Whether principles of natural justice to be read into clause 13 (2) 
(iv) of Certified Standing Orders. 
Administrative Law: 
Rule of natural justice-Aim of-Whether principles of natural justice 
H 
applicable to both quasi-judicial as well as administrative action. 
'·.:i'.'O 
..... 
D.K. Y ADA V v. J.M.A. INDUSTRIES 
931 
The respondent-company termiriated the appellant's services on the 
ground that since he had willingly absented from duty continuously for more 
than 5 days from December 3, 1980, without leave or prior information 01r 
intimation or previous permission of the management, he had been deemed 
to have left the service of the company on his own and lost the lien and the 
appointment with effect from December 3, 1980. It relied on clause 13(2) (iv) 
of the Certified Standing Order in support of its action. 
The appellant's plea that despite bis reporting to duty on December 3, 
1980 and every day continuously thereafter, he was prevented entry at the 
gate and was not allowed to sign the attendance register and that he was not 
permitted to join duty without assigning any reasons, was not accepted. 
The Labour Court upheld the termination order as legal and valid. It 
held that the appellant bad failed to prove his case, that the action of the 
A 
B 
c 
. ,. 
respondent was in accordance with the Standing Orders and it was not a 
termination nor retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Actand that the 
appellant in terms of Standing Orders lost bis lien on bis appointment and was · D 
not entitled to reinstatement. 
Allowing the appeal of the employee, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The action of the managementin terminating the appellant's 
·service is violative of the principles of natural justice. Undtrr clause 13 (2) (iv) 
of Certified Standing Orders, on completion of eight calendar days' absence 
from duty an employee shall be deemed to have abandoned the services and 
lost bis lien on his appointment. Thereafter, the management is empowered 
E 
to strike off the name from the Muster Rolls. But it is not correct to say that 
expiry of eight days' absence from duty brings about automatic loss oflien on 
F 
the post and nothing more need be done by the management to pass an order 
terminating the service and per force termination is automatic. The prin· 
ciples of natural justice must be read into the Standing Order No. 13 (2) (iv). 
Otherwise, it would become arbitrary, unjust and unfair violating Article 14. 
Kesltwanand Bharti v. Union of India, [1973] Suppl. S.C.R. 1 and State 
G 
Bank of India v. Workmen of State Bank of India. and Anr. [1991] 1 S.C.C. 13, 
referred to . 
....... 
_. 
1.2. In the instant case, admittedly, the management did notconductanv 
domestic enquiry nor gave the appellant any opportunity to put forth his cas;. 
H 
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The Labour Court did not record any findings on the appellant's plea that 
despite his reporting to duty on December 3, 1980 and on all subsequent days 
and readiness to.join duty he was prevented from reporting to duty, nor he 
was permitted to sign the attendance register, but held that the management 
had power under clause 13 of the Certified Standing Orders to terminate the 
service of the appellant. Under th; circumstances, the award of the Labour 
· B 
Court is set 

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