LexHARI PADA KHAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
HARi PADA KHAN A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DECEMBER 4, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] B Labour Law: . Standing Orders of Indian Oil Corporation-Order 20- W-Workman-FIR filed against for theft-Arrest-Dismissal from seJVice C without holding any enquiiy-Held not arbitrary-However, it would be sub- ject to result of criminal trial. Constitution of India : Articles 14 and 16-Standing Order 20-W of Indian Oil Corporation- D Held not ultra-vires--Articles 14 and 16. The appellant, a workman of Indian Oil Corporation, was arrested in pursuance of an FIR lodged in connection with a theft of oil from the Corporation. After his release, he was dismissed from service under the provisions of Standing Order No. 20-IV of Indian Oil Corporation which provided dismissal of a workman without holding any enquiry if he was convicted for a criminal offence by a court or if the General Manager was satisfied that it was neither expedient nor in the interest of security to continue the workman. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the validity of the Standing Order on the ground that it was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, the workman filed petition for special leave. Dismissing the petition, this Conrt E F HELD : 1. Standing Order 20-IV of Indian Oil Corporation is not G ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The rule has been made with the intention to prevent an employee involved in a criminal case and arrested in furtherance thereof, from continuing in service. Continuance of such an employee in the service would be an affront to good and disciplined conduct of workmen, and would demoralise the service. There· H 157 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A fore, it was most expedient in the public interest not to held any further enquiry and terminate the appellant's services forthwith. However, it would be subject to be result of the trial. (159-F) B Tutsi Ram Patel v. Union of India, (1985) 2 SCC 398, followed. Workmen of Hindustan Steels Ltd. & Anr. v. Hindustan Steels Ltd. & Anr., [1985) 2 S.C.R. 428, referred to. 2. The principle of natural justice has no application when the authority concerned is of the opinion that it would be inexpedient to hold C an inquiry and it would be against the interest of security of institution to continue in employment the offender-workman when serious acts are likely to affect the foundation of the institution. It is settled law that the principle of natural justice cannot supplant but can supplement the law. In that view the matter, the Rule having been made to meet specified contingency, the principle of natural justice by implication, stands excluded. [159-H, 160-D] D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 28044 of 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 28.6.95 of the Calcutta High E Court in O.T. No. 3066/92 arising out of W.P.C.O. No. 1590(W)/89. M.N. Krishnamani, P. Choudhari and Bijan Kr. Ghosh for the Petitioner. R.P. Bhatt, Ms. Tanuja Sheel, Ms. Reema Bhandari and M.N. Shroff F for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Petitioner was a permanent staff member of the Indian Oil Corpora- tion. He along with others, is said to have been involved in theft of oil from G Haldia Dock Complex. An FIR was lodged against all the persons who committed the theft including the petitioner. On that basis, Criminal Case No. 1 was registered and he was arrested on September 6, 1988 and was subsequently released on November 3, 1988. Relying upon Station Order No. 20- IV of the Corporation, he was dismissed from service, which reads H thus: H.P. KHAN v. U.01. 159 "Where a workman has been convicted for a criminal offence in a A Court of Law or where the General Manager is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, that there is neither expedient nor in the interest of security to continue the workman, the workman may be removed or dismissed from serVice without follo\\:ing the procedure laid down under III of this clause." B When the services of the petitioner were terminated he challenged the validity of the Rule in question by filing a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court. The High Court in W.P. C.O. No. 1590 [W] of 1989 and on appeal from Original Order Tender No. 3066/92 by order dated 28th June, 1995 upheld the validity
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.