LexJ.H. PATEL (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus NUBOARD MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014) 1 S.C.R. 773 J.H. PATEL (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. v. NUBOARD MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. & ORS. · (Civil Appeal No. 1762 of 2007) JANUARY 22, 2014 [H.L. GOKHALE AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Labour Law: Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: s.6-E(2)(b) - Misconduct - Dismissal - Prior approval from Labour Court during pendency of proceedings - Held: A B c Since earlier proceedings were pending, Management was required to obtain prior approval from Labour Court- However, failure to do so will not disentitle the Management from D proving the misconduct in court - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.32(2)(b). Dismissal from service - Misconduct - Complaint by workmen against officers of company - Officers acquitted - E Charge-sheet against workmen that they filed false case against officers of company - Workmen dismissed from service - Held: There is no discussion whatsoever about the evidence as to why Labour Court came to conclusion that the misconduct is established - In the circumstances, finding of F Labour Court that management had proved the misconduct cannot be sustained - Therefore, workmen were entitled to declaration that termination of their services was bad in law and for consequential relief- Workmen are entitled to award of compensation towards back-wages quantified at 50%, with G interest at 6% per annum, from the date of dismissal until the date of superannuation/death, whichever is earlier - Principles of natural justice. Three appellants-workmen on being elected as the 773 H 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 1 S.C.R. A General Secretary, the Organizing Secretary, and the Vice President of the Karmachari Sangh were declared as "protected workmen" of the respondent-employer. On 10.4.1977, when the General Secretary was collecting subscription from the members of the Union, the B subscription which he had collected and the Receipt Book were snatched away from him. He went to the Police Station to lodge a complaint, but his complaint was not recorded. He then filed a criminal complaint before the Magistrate concerned. In that complaint, there were four c accused, including the Director and the Administrative Manager. However, the complaint was not proved, and the Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 29.6.1978 acquitted all the four accused. Thereafter, the management served a charge-she'et dated 15.7.1978 on 0 the three workmen stating that they had lodged a report to the Superintendent of Police containing false allegations against four officers of the management. The workmen filed an explanation. However, no inquiry was held and an order of dismissal was passed on 17.7.1978 E stating that no further inquiry in the matter was called for and the copy of the judgment of the Special Judicial Magistrate "speaks for itself." The workmen challenged their dismissal before the Labour Court, which accepted the case of the management with respect to the misconduct of the workmen, but held that no inquiry was F held at the departmental level prior to the order of dismissal, and, thus, there was denial of the principles of natural justice and fairness. However, it declined reinstatement, and passed the order granting 50% of the back-wages from the date of dismissal until the date of G judgment and order passed by the Labour Court i.e. 31.3.1981. The single Judge of the High Court held the removal of the workmen as justified, and set aside the order of the Labour Court granting back wages. H Allowing the appeal in part, the Court J.H. PATEL (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. v. NUBOARD 775 · MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. HELD: 1. As far as the issue of non obtaining prior A approval is concerned, inasmuch as s.6(E)(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act is pari passu to s. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and since the earlier proceedings were pending, the management was required to obtain the prior approval from the Labour B Court. However, the consequence thereof cannot be that. the management will be disentitled to prove the misconduct in court. [para 10] [780-D-F] Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. C Satya Prakash 2013(2) SCR 939 = (2013) 9 SCC 232, Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors. 2002(1) SCR 284 = (2002) 2 sec 244 - relied on. 2.1. The judgment of the Labour Court does not contain any reason in support of the conclusion arrived D at by it that the mis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.