LexKARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. versus SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. v. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA AND ANR. A_ ""' MAY 1, 2001 B [S.P. BHARUCHA, V.N. KHARE, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Y.K. SABHARWAL AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] Labour Laws: c Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 10 and 13-Domestic enquiry- Termination of service of employee-Right of employer to adduce evidence" in justification of its action-When can be invoked-Held, employer should exercise its right of leading fresh evidence at the first available opportunity and not at any time thereafter during the proceedings before the Tribunal/ D LaboW-Court. Right of employer to adduce evidence-In justification of its action- Not a statutory duty-It is a procedure laid down by court to avoid delay )'- in disposal of disputes. E Doctrines: ~ Doctrine of Stare decisis-De,cision holding the field for long time- Not to be unsettled unless there is a strong cause. Respondent-employee was dismissed from senice after an enquiry. J- f. Labour court held that the enquiry conducted by the appellant-employer was not sustainable in law. Thereafter, the appellant sought permission to adduce evidence to prove the charge against the respondent. Labour court followed the decision in Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda & Others. It held that since the appellant had not sought permission to adduce evidence in the counter statement, it could not seek the same after a finding had been given G on the l>reliminary issue. High Court upheld the same. On appeal before this Court a two Judge Bench observed that there was a conflict between the decisions in Shambu Nath Goyal and Rajendra Jha and referred the matter to a larger Bench. Thus the matter came before the present Bench. ,,_ H Dismissing the appeal, the Court 284 KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. v. SMT. LAKSHMJDEVAMMA 285 HELD: A Per Santosh Hegde J. (for himself and Bharucha J.) 1. Management has to exercise its right of leading fresh evidence in justification of its action under a domestic enquiry at the first available opportunity and not at any time thereafter during the 1>roceedings before the B tribunal/labour court. Rajendra Jha s case was decided on the facts of the case without laying down any 1>rinciple of law and the Court has not taken any view 01>1msed to Shambu Nath Goyal s case. Thus, there is no conflict between the ,judgments in Shambu Nath Goyal and Rajendra Jha s case. (289-G] Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., [1984[ 1 SCR 85 and C Rajendra Jha v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Distt. Dhanbad and Am~, [1985) 1 SCR 544, affirmed. 2. Shambu Nath Goyal s case has held the field for nearly 18 years, therefore, the doctrine of stare decisis requires it to be approved, to see that a long standing decision is not unsettled without any strong cause. [294-C] Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., [1984) 1 SCR 85, aff'rrmed. D 3. The right of a management to lead eYidence before the labour court or the Industrial Tribunal in.Justification of its decision under consideration E by such Tribunal or Court is not a statutory right It is a procedure laid down by the Com1 to avoid delay and multiplicity of1>roceedings in the disposal of dis1mtes between the management and the workmen. Further this procedure is neither oppressive nor contrary to the object and scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [290-B] F Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd v. Motipur Sugar Factory, (1965) 3 SCR 588 and Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., [1984] 1 SCR 85, relied on. 4. On facts, the management did not seek permission to lead evidence G until after the Labour Court had held that its domestic enquiry was vitiated. Therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant (294-E] 5. The management can be given the right to adduce eVidence to justify its domestic enquiry only if it has reserved its right to do so in the a1>1>Iication H 286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 3 S.C.R. A made by it under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 or in the objection that the management has to file to the reference made under section 10 of the Act. [293-F] 6. The opportunity of leading evidence is being sought by the management only as an alternative plea and not as an admission of illegality B in its domestic enquiry. It is also of advantage to the workmen as they will be put to notice of the fact that they can keep their r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.