J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. versus K.P. AGRAWAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 60 · Decided: 01-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. 
v. 
K.P. AGRA WAL AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY I, 2007 
B 
[B.P. SINGHANDR.V. RAVEENDRAN,JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 226-U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-
-f 
Section 6(6)-Charges framed against delinquent employee for misconduct-
C Punishment of dismissal imposed by employer after inquiry-Labour Court 
imposing a lesser punishment of withholding two annual increments of the 
employee after finding that one of the charges was proved-Application for 
amendement of award by emp/1yee on the ground that the award is silent 
about granting back wages-Labour Court allowed the application-Writ 
Petition challenging the award and the amendment by the employer was 
0 dismissed by High Court-Correctness of-Held, on facis, Labour Court had 
the power to amend !he award-Awarding of back wages by Labour Court 
was not warranted when a charges of serious misconduct was proved-
Labour Court cannot interfere with the punishment of dismissal without 
>-. 
recording a finding that the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity 
E of the charge-Hence, the punishment of dismissal upheld. 
Backwages-Sec. 1 lA of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Article. 226 of 
Constitution of India-Principles stated-Difference between cases where 
termination/dismissal is held to be illegal and invalid and cases where court 
uphold the finding regarding misconduct, but only interferes with the quantum 
F of punishment, for purposes of backwages. 
Appellant--employer issued charge-sheets to respondent-employee for 
various charges of misconduct Inquiry Officer held an inquiry and found all 
the charges proved against the employee. On the basis of the Inquiry Report, 
the employer imposed a punishment of dismissal on the employee. Labour 
G Court, in its Award, held that the inquiry was not fair and proper; and found 
that only one of the charges was proved against the employee. The Labour 
Court, however, held that the punishment of dismissal was not warranted and 
therefore, imposed a lesser punishment of withholding the two annual 
increments since the employee was working for four years without any 
H 
60 
J .K. SYNTHETICS LTD. v. K.P. AGRAWAL 
61 
blemish. The employee filed an application under section 6(6) of the U.P. A 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking amendment of the Award on the ground 
that it was silent about reinstatement with continuity of service and back 
wages. The employer resisted the application contending that the Labour Court 
became jimctus officio after publication of the award and hence, it could not 
amend the award; that the prayer amounted to seeking review of the award B 
and there was no jurisdiction or power to grant such relief; and that the 
respondent was not entitled to back wages as the Labour Court held that a 
misconduct was proved. The Labour Court allowed the application and held 
that the employee is entitled to full back wages. The employer filed a Writ 
Petition challenging the award and the amendment before High Court. On 
the basis of the submission made by the employee that he was not reinstated C 
despite the Award of the Labour Court not being stayed by the High Court, 
the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition of the employer holding that it 
had wilfully violated the lawful order and hence not entitled to equitable 
discretion under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the appeal 
by the employer. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Under section 6(6) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 
Labour Court has power to amend the award, either on its own motion or on 
an application of any party to the dispute, if there is an arithmetical or clerical 
or typographical error in the order; and if the court had said something, which 
it did not intend to say, or omitted something, which it intended to say, by 
reason of any accidental slip/omission on the part of the court. The power 
cannot be exercised where the matter involves rehearing on merits or 
reconsideration of questions of fact or law or consideration of fresh material 
D 
E 
or new arguments which were not advanced when the original order was made. p 
The power cannot be exercised to change the reasoning and conclusions. 
(Paras 4 & 8) (66-G; 69-F) 
1.2. On an application being made under Section 6(6) of the Act, the 
Labour Court recorded that it had accidentally omitted to answer the second 
part of the reference and rectified the omission by adding a paragraph. Labour G 
Court had the pow

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