HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD. versus TAPAN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 12-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD. 
A 
v. 
TAPAN KUMAR BHATTACHARYA AND ANR. 
JULY 12, 2002 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
Labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, I947-Section I I-A-Industrial Dispute-Setting C 
aside order of discharge or dismissal of a workman-Reinstatement with 
payment of full back wages-Justification of-Held, while granting such relief 
tribunal is duty bound to consider the circumstances of the case-In the instant 
case there was no application of mind to the question of back wages~However, 
on facts of the case and long drawn litigation, employee to be paid 50% of 
the back wages. 
D 
Respondent-workman was suspended from services for committing 
misconduct. Departmental enquiry also found him guilty. Appellant-
management then dismissed the respondent-workman from services. 
Tribunal approved the proposed order of dismissal from service of E 
respondent-workman. Thereafter respondent-workman raised an 
Industrial Dispute. Tribunal held that since the charges framed against 
the respondent-workman were not proved by any cogent and reliable 
evidence dismissal of the respondent-workman was not justified and as 
such he was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages. Appellant-
management then filed petition before High Court challenging the award F 
of the Tribunal. Single Judge set aside and quashed the award. Aggrieved, 
respondent-workman filed an appeal. Division Bench allowed the appeal 
and set aside the judgment of the Single Judge. Hence the present appeal. 
The question that arose before this court was whether on the facts 
and circumstances of the case Tribunal and the Division Bench of the High G 
Court were justified in passing the order for payment of full back wages 
in favour of the workman. 
Appellant-management contended that both the Tribunal and the 
Division Bench committed error in directing payment of full back wages 
1n 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A since in the facts and circumstances of the case no order for payment of 
back wages should have been passed. in favour of the workman. 
Respondent-workman contended that since the Tribunal held that 
the charges framed by the management against the workman could not 
be established by adducing cogent and reliable evidence; as such the order 
B of dismissal of service could not be passed, therefore, order of 
reinstatement of the workman with full back wages was the only 
alternative. It was further contended that since the Division Bench on 
consideration of the matter, held the order of dismissal to be illegal and 
unjustified, it rightly confirmed the award of the Tribunal directing 
C reinstatement with full back wages. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
as amended in 1971, the Industrial Tribunal is statutorily mandated, while 
D setting aside the order of discharge or dismissal and directing 
reinstatement of the workman to consider the terms and conditions, 
subject to which the relief should be granted or to give such other relief 
to the workman including the award of any other punishment in lieu of 
the discharge or dismissal, as the circumstances of the case may require. 
The section is couched in wide and comprehensive terms. It vests a wide 
E discretion in the Tribunal in the matter of awarding proper punishment 
and also in the matter of the terms and conditions on which reinstatement 
of the workman should be ordered. It necessarily follows that the tribunal 
is duty bound to consider whether in the circumstances of the case, back 
wages have to be awarded and if so, to what extent. [131-G, H; 132-A, BJ 
F 
Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of MIS Hindustan Tin 
Works Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., [1979) 2 SCC 80 and P.G. I. o/Medical Education 
and Research Chandigarh v. Raj Kumar, [2001) 2 SCC 54, referred to. 
2. In the instant case from the award passed by the Industrial 
G Tribunal, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the High 
Court, it is clear that the order for payment of full back wages to the 
workman was passed without any discussion and without stating any 
reason. It.appears that the Tribunal and the Division Bench had proceeded 
on the footing that since the order of dismissal passed by the management 
was set aside, the order of reinstatement with full back wages was to follow 
H as a matter of course. However, in the context of the facts of the instant 
.. 
HINDUSTAN MOTORS 

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