DESH RAJ GUPTA versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IV, U .P. LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 12-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I . , .. 
" .. 
DESH RAJ GUPTA 
v. 
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IV, U .P. LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1990 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND M.N. 
VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
U.P.Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: ss. 4K & 6F/Industtial Dis-
putes Act, 1947: ss. JO & 33A-Dismissa/ of an employee during the 
pendency of reference-Validity of. 
The appellant, an employee of the respondent Sahkari Bank was 
put under suspension and served with a chargesheet during the 
pendency of the reference under s. 4K of the u:P. Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947. It was followed by a domestic inquiry leading to his dismis-
sal. Thereupon he filed a complaint under s. 6-F of the Act before the 
Industrial Tribunal and the same was treated as a dispute referred to it . 
The Tribunal found that principles of natural justice had not been 
followed in the domestic inquiry. However, proceeding further it asked 
the management to justify the order of punishment on merits. The 
parties led their evidence and the Tribunal recorded a finding that 
charges levelled were established. The High Court dismissed the writ 
petition challenging the award. 
In the appeal by special leave, it was contended for ttie appellant 
that after the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the domestic 
inquiry held by the employer \vas illegal, question of justification of the 
punishment by fresh materials could arise only if the management had 
applied for permission to justify the punishment and, in the absence of 
such a prayer the Tribunal did not have the power to call upon the 
employer to do so, and that in any event the appellant was entitled to his 
salary from the date of his dismissal to the date of the award. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court, 
HELD: 1. By asking the respondent to justify the punishment by 
adducing additional evidence the Tribunal merely reminded the emp-
loyer of his rights. There was no illegality in the course adopted which 
could vitiate the award. [225F] 
411 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co., (1979] 3 SCR 11650 
distinguished. 
2. If the order of punishment passed by the management is de-
dared illegal and the punishment is upheld subsequently by a labour 
~;
tribunal, the date of dismissal cannot relate back to the date of the 
"· 
B 
illegal order of the employer. [225H) 
•' 
In the instant case, the Tribunal had initially found that the 
domestic inquiry was vitiated on account of violation of principles of 
.,.. 
natural justice. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to his salary from 
the date of his dismissal, to the date of the award. [2250 & HJ 
c 
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, 
(1980) 2 SCR 146, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 453 
"" 
(NL) of 1984. 
... 
D 
kj
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.5.1983 of the Allahabad 
High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 8798 of 1980. 
K. Ramamurthi and R.D. Upadhyay for the Appellant. 
E 
Anil Kumar Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appellant's writ 
·1 
F 
'.'etition challenging an award of the Industrial Tribunal. 
2. The appellant was working as an Assistant Cashier in the 
Rampur Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., when a reference of an industrial 
dispute was made under s. 4-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act). The provisions of the -
G 
U .P. Act relevant to the present case are similar to those of the Cent-
ral Act, that is, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 4-K of the 
U.P. Act, like the corresponding s. IO of the Central Act, empowers 
the State Government to refer industrial disputes to Labour Courts or 
" 
Tribunals. During the pendency of the reference the appellant was put 
., 
under suspension and served with a charge-sheet in February 1976, 
H 
which was followed by a domestic inquiry leading to the dismissal of 
'iii
~ 
~ '··
D.R. GUPTA v. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [SHARMA, J.] 
413 
the appellant from service on 16.8.1976. The U.P. Act in ss. 6-E and 
6-F incorporates provisions similar to those in ss 33 and 33-A of the 
Central Act. The appellant filed a complaint under s. 6-F of the U.P. 
Act before the Industrial Tribunal, and the same was treated as a 
dispute referred to it, and was finally disposed of by the Award which 
was impugned befo

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