KANHAIYALAL AGRAWAL AND ORS. versus THE FACTORY MANAGER, GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 13-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
KANHAIYALAL AGRAWAL AND ORS. 
v. 
THE FACTORY MANAGER, GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Lt1bour Lt1ws : 
Termination-Workmen-Labour court refused reinstatement on ground 
of loss of c01~fidence of employer-Awarded ha({ salary and full retirement 
bene.fit-lndustrial court directed reinstatement without backwages-Upheld 
by Single Judge of the High Court-Writ appeal dismissed by Division Bench-
On appeals held {f Single Judges exercises jurisdiction under Article 227, writ 
appeal not maintainable-Industrial Court right in reversing the finding of loss 
of confidence in employee and granting reinstatement without backwages-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227. 
Services of appellant-workmen were terminated for contravening 
the .prescribed procedure of th~ respondent-employer. Labour Court refused 
to grant reinstatement as there was loss of confidence of employer on the 
basis of the evidence produced. However, it awarded half salary and full 
retirement benefits. The Industrial court held that the workQlan had not 
COJllmitted any misappropriation of money but were negligent in performing 
their duties; and directed their reinstatement without back wages. Single 
Judge of High Court upheld the order of the Industrial Court. Division 
Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground of maintainability as they arose 
out of the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 
which is revisional in nature. Hence the present appeals. 
The employer contended that the finding of loss of confidence in the 
workman by the Labour Court has been reversed by the Industrial Court 
on unreasonable grounds. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Industrial Court was right in reversing the finding of 
loss of confidence in employee. Loss of confidence cannot be subjective 
based upon the mind of the Management. Objective facts which would 
H 
lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the Management 
84 
, 
K. AGRAWAL v. FACTORY MANAGER, GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD. 
85 
regarding trustworthiness or reliability of the employee must be alleged 
A 
and proved. Else, the right of reinstatement ordinarily available to the 
employee will be lost. [90-E; A-BJ 
2. It cannot be stated that the conclusions emanating from the orders 
of the Industrial Court are one of non-application of mind to the facts 9r 
ignoring any of the relevant facts or taking into consideration any of the 
B 
facts not available on record, much less can the conclusions be characterised 
as perverse. Therefore, writ jurisdiction has been appropriately exercised. 
[90-D] 
3. Regarding claim for payment of back wages, the Industrial Court 
and the single Judge of High Court have given a cogent reason that for the 
negligence committed by the workmen the punishment of denial of back 
wages would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, there is no justification in 
interferring with the same. [90-E; 88-H; 89-A] 
c 
4. If Single Judge exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 under the 
D 
Constitution of India, 1950 Letters Patent Appeal would be maintainable, 
but if the jurisdiction is exercised under Article 227 it will not be maintainable. 
However, while considering a petition under Article 226 or Article 227, if the 
Single Judge does not state under which provision he has decided the matter 
and where the facts justify filing of petition both under Article 226 and 
Article 227 and the petition so filed is dismissed on merits, the matter may be 
E 
considered in its proper perspective in an appeal. [89-C; D] 
Lokmat Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankarprasad, [1999] 6 SCC 275, 
relied on. 
Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, [1986] Supp. SCC 401; Ratnagiri 
District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Dinkar Kashinath Watve & Ors., 
[1993] Supp. 1 SCC 9 and Sushilabai Laxminarayan Mudliyar & Ors. v. 
Nihalchand Waghajibhai Shaha & Ors., [1993] Supp 1 SCC 11, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6878-6880 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.5.99 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 247, 249 and 255 of 1996. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 6881-6883 of 1999. 
F 
G 
H 
86 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Dr. T.N. Singh, S.K. Gambhir, N.R. Choudhary, J.P. Pandey, Abhijit 
Bhattacharjee, Anil K. Sharma, A. Sinha and A.K. Sanghi for the appearing 
parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
RAJENDRA BABU, J.

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