H.S. CHANDRA SHEKARA CHARI versus THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 284 · Decided: 31-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
H.S. CHANDRA SHEKARA CHARI 
v. 
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC AND ANR. 
MARCH 31, 1999 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AN.D D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Labour Law-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section I IA-Award by 
the Labour Court setting aside the dismissal order against the appellant 
and directing re-instatement with full back wages-High Court disallowing 
C full back wages on the reasoning that the appellant was not totally innocent 
and the charges against him could have been established by better or 
further evidence~Justifiability of-Held, the High Court had no 
jurisdiction, not even under Section 11 A, to enter into the question whether 
the charges could have been established .by better or further evidence-
D Such speculation not the function of the court or any quasi-judicial 
authority-Necessary consequences have to follow and appropriate orders 
are to be passed if it is found as a fact that the charges are not established-
Case remitted to Single Judge of High Court for rehearing. 
The appellant was dismissed from service _by the respondent by order 
E dated 30-7-1988 after holding an enquiry. The dismissal order was challenged 
before the Labour Court, which after coming to the finding that the charges 
against the appellant were not proved, by its award dated 1.8.1994 directed 
the reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages from the date of 
dismissal till the date of passing the award. The respond.ents challenged the 
findings and the award of the labour court by way of a writ petition in the 
F High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court while upholding the 
reinstatement of the appellant came to the conclusion that with better proof 
the charges cQuld have been established and held that the appellant could not 
be awarded full back wages and that a portion of the back wages must be 
disallowed by way of punishment. The writ appeal filed by the appellant 
G against the order of the Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench 
of the High Court. Hence this appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. The judgments passed by the Single Judge as also by the 
H Division Bench of the High Court, which summarily dismissed the writ 
284 
/' 
H.S.C.S. CHARI v. D.C. KSRTC [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 
285 
appeal, cannot be sustaine4. Once the Tribunal had found that the Charges A 
against the appellant were not established, it was not open to the Single 
Judge, who had rightly refused to re-appraise the evidence to say that with 
better proof the ~barges could have been established. The Single Judge had 
no jurisdiction, not even under Section l lA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947, to eriter into the question whether the charges could have been B 
established by better or further evidence. That is not the function of the court 
or any quasi- judicial authority. If it is found as a fact that the charges are 
not established, then the necessary consequences have to follow and, as a 
corollary thereto, appropriate orders are to be passed. There may be 
circumstances justifying non-payment of full back wages, but they cannot be C 
denied for the reason that the charges could have been established with 
better pro~f. If "better proor' was available with the management and it was 
not furnished or produced before the court, a presumption would arise that 
such proof, if furnished, would have gone against the management. It is 
surprising that the view propounded by the Single Judge, which falls in th.e D 
realm of speculation, has been upheld by the Division Bench. [288-C, E-H] · .. 
2. The whole case is remanded back to the Single Judge to re-hear it 
on merits, subject to the condition that in compliance of the award passed 
by the Labour Court the appellant shall be put back to duty with all the 
arrears of salary. [289-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2457 of 
1999. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.98 of the Karnataka High Court F 
in W.A. No. 453of1997. 
Ms. Hetu Arora for S.R. Bhat for the Appellant. 
K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 
H 
A 
B 
286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[t998] 2 S.C.R. 
The appellant was dismissed from service by the respondent by order 
dated 30th July, 1988 which was challenged before the Labour Court and the 
Labour Court by its Award dated l st August, 1994, directed as under : 
"Claim. statement filed by th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.