EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF U.P. STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, LIMITED versus CHANDRA KIRAN TYAGI

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 250 · Decided: 08-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

250 
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF U.P. STATE WAREHOUSING 
A 
CORPORATION, LIMITED 
l'. 
CHANDll.A KIRAN TYAGI 
September 8, 1969 
(J.M. SHELAT AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.l 
-A'"'ricultural Produce (Derelop111c111 and Warehousing) 
Corporatio11 
Act l23 of 1956), s. 54 t11ul 
}~£'g11/a1ions 11ullfe 
1hereu11der-Reg11lo1iu11 
16(3 )-Dis1nissal of e111p/oyce wilhout follvwi11g proc<'d11re-lf e111ployce 
enritled to rei11state11u•11t or only da111ages-Specific J{e/icf Act ( l uf 
1877}, s. 21. 
Under s. 28 of the Agricultural Produo~ (Development and \Van:-
housing) Corporation Act, 1956, the appellant v.1as established as the 
Warehousing Corporation of the State of U.P. Section 54 of the Act 
gives power to a Warehousing Corporation to n1akc regulations not in-
consistent with the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the regula-
tions are to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary or 
expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the. provisions of the Act. 
Regulatil)n 11 deals with termination of the service <Jf an cn1ploycc other 
than by way of punishment, while regulation 16 deals with penalties. 
Under regulation 16(3) an employee, on whom the punishment of dis-
missal is to be imposed, has to be given an opportunity, of tendering 
his explanation in writing, for cross-examining the \vitncsscs against hin1, 
and for producing evidence in his defence. 
The respondent was a warehouseman in the employment of the appel-
lant. 
Certain charges were framed against him and he 
was 
suspended 
pending enquiry into the charges. 
After receiving ·his explanation, 
the 
Enquiry Officer did not take anv evidence in respect of any charge. lnste~ul 
he met various persons and collected information, and gave his findings 
on the various charges on the basis of the enquiries n1ade hy hin1 nn<l 
the records. 
Even the information so collected was not put to the res-
pondent. 
On the basis of those findings of the Enquiry Otli.ccr the 1cs-
Pondent °"''as dismissed fron1 ·service. 
He filed a snit 
ch~11lenging the 
o.rdcr of dismiss~{ on the ground that there was a violation of regulation 
16(3) and prayed for a declaration that the or<lcr was null and void and 
that he \Vas entitled tt. be re-instated \Vith full pay and other en1olume.nts. 
On the questions whether : (1) the disn1issal \Vas not in accordance-
\"'ith regulation 16(3): and (2) the relationship being one of personal 
service the respondent \Vas entitled to the declaration {or rcinstatcn1cnt. 
HELD : (1) The tcrn1ination of the rcsp-...11H.1ent's service v;as nnt 
under regulation 11, hut under regulation 16; and the procedure pres-
cribed by rcguh1tion lf(J) was not follO\l.'ed by the Enquiry Olllcer in 
the present case. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(2) A declaration to enforce a contract of personal service ·will not 
norma\ly be granted. 
The' e}l.ceptions arc : (i) appropriate 
c~1scs of 
public servants who have been dis1nisse<l fron1 service in contravention 
I{ 
of Art. 311; (ii) disn1issed workers un<lcr industrial and l;:ihour la\\'; <ind 
(iii) when a statutory bo<ly has acted in breach of a n1311datory ohliga~ 
tion imposed by a statue. [267 G] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
WAREHOUSING CORP. v. TYAGI (Vaidia/ingam, J.) 
251 
Jn the present case, a breach has been committed by the appellant 
of reoulation 16(3) as the procedure indicated therein was not followed. 
The order of dismissal however was passed by the authority who could 
pass the order. 
Such an orde·r made in breach of the regulations would 
only be c·ontrary to the terms and conditions of relationship between 
the appellant (employer) and the respondent (employee), but, it would 
not be in breach of any statutory obligation. because, the Act does not 
guarantee any statutory status to the respondent, nor does it impose any 
obligation on the appellant in such matters. 
Therefore, the violation of 
regulation 16(3) as alleged and e~tablished in this case, could only result 
in the order of dismissal being held to be wrongful, and in conse.quence~ 
making the appellant liable for damages. but could not have the effect 
of treating the respondent as still in service or entitling llim to reinstate-
ment. 
[271 B-E] 
Dr. S. 
B. Dutt v. Univmity of f)elhi, [1959] S.C.R. 1235 and S. R. 
Trn·ori v. District Board, Agra, [1964]3 S.C.R. 55, followed. 
Life fnsurance--Corporation of India v. Sunil Kun?ar Mukherjee, [1964J 
5 S. C. R. 528, distinguished. 
· 
• 
Vine v. Notional Dock Labour Board, 
[1956] 
3 All 
E.R. 

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