DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PLANTATION DIVISION, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS versus MUNNU BARRICK AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1162 · Decided: 17-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PLANTATION DIVISION, 
ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS 
v. 
MUNNU BARRICK AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 17, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Labour Law : 
C 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : Section 11-A. 
Industrial dispute-Workmen removed fi'om service on charges of 
commission of misconduct-Despite notice the said workmen did not 
participate in domestic enquily-Thereafter, the said 1:•orkmen removed 
from service on the basis of ex parte enquiry-Labour Court directed 
D reinstatement of the said workmen since procedun prescribed in Art. 311 
was not followed-Letters Patent Appeal filed after a delay of 103 days 
dismissed as barred by limitation-Review application also dismissed-
Correctness of-Held : The workmen are not employees of the Union of 
india and their conditions of service are not governed by any rule made 
E under Art. 309-Hence, they are not protected under Art. 311-Where 
serious questions of law are raised delay should have been condoned-
High Court's Judgment set aside-Matter remitted to Labour Court for fresh 
consideration-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 311. 
The respondent-workmen were removed· from service on charges 
F of commission of misconduct of giving less outturn and instigating other 
workmen to slow down work. Despite notice the responde0;ts did not 
participate in the domestic enquiry and, therefore, the Disciplinary 
Authority directed removal of the respondents on the basis of an ex parte 
enquiry. 
G 
The respondents raised an industrial dispute and the Labour Court 
directed reinstatement of the respondent holding that the procedure 
prescribed in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was not fol-
lowed. 
H 
The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, which 
1162 
J 
,..-, 
D.M., PLANTATION DIVN. ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS v. M. BARRICK 1163 
was dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal filed after a delay of 103 days A 
was dismissed as barred by limitation. The review application was also 
dismissed. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1. Domestic enquiry in an industrial establishment is 
governed by the Standing Orders applicable thereto. The employer, if 
it is a government company, or a society registered, under the Societies 
Registration Act can also frame is rules and regulations governing the 
conditions of service of its employees. Domestic enquiry is required to 
be conducted in terms of such rules and regulations. [1167-C] 
C 
2. From a perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court it does 
not appear that the workmen had raised any contention as regards 
violation of any mandatory provision of such rules laying down the 
procedure for conducting departmental proceedings. Indisputably, D 
however, the principles of natural justice in such a proceeding are 
required to be complied with. ;1167-D-E] 
3. In law, the concerned workmen to do enjoy any status as they 
are not the employees of the Union of India and furthermore their 
conditions of service were not governed by any rule made under Article 
309 of the Constitution. Services of the workmen were also not protected 
under Article 311 thereof. [1167-F] 
4. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitiacket 
formula. It must be viewed with flexibility. In a given case, where a 
deviation takes place as regards compliance of the principles of natural 
justice, the Court may insist upon proofofprejudice before setting aside 
the order impugned before it. (1168-B-C] 
Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, [2004) 6 SCC 311, 
Managing Director ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1994) SC 1074 and Canara 
Bank v. Debasis Das, [2003) 4 SCC 557, relied on. 
5. In a case of this nature were serious questions ofJaw were raised 
E 
F 
by the appellant, the Division Bench of the High Court should h;;ve 
taken a liberal view on the application for condonation of delay filed by H 
1164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A the appellant wherefor the respondent-workmen could have been ad-
equately compensated on monetary terms. [1169-E] 
6. With a view to doing complete justice to the parties the impugned 
judgments and orders are set aside and the matt-er remitted to the Presiding 
B Officer. Labour Court for consideration of the matter afresh. [1170-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7312~7313 
of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.2001 of the Calcutta High 
C Court: (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) in CAN No. 28/2001-M

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