KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY versus PRITHVI SINGH

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 267 · Decided: 15-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
267
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY
v.
PRITHVI SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 3585 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Service Law – Respondent was working as a Security Guard
in the appellant-University – He was a daily rated employee –
Allegation that respondent while on duty had misbehaved with one
lady Research Scholar – Enquiry Officer found respondent guilty
for committing the misconduct – Consequently, terminated by the
appellant-University – Labour Court held that the enquiry held by
the appellant was not legal and proper – With these findings, the
Labour Court held it to be a case of illegal retrenchment and set
aside the termination order as being illegal – High Court upheld
the award passed by the Labour Court – On appeal, held: The Labour
Court committed an error in not framing a “preliminary issue” for
deciding the legality of domestic enquiry – Further, having found
fault in the domestic enquiry, it committed another error when it did
not allow the appellant to lead independent evidence to prove the
misconduct/charge on merits and straightaway proceeded to hold
that it was a case of illegal retrenchment and hence the respondents’
termination is bad in law – High Court did not take note of any
legal issues and cursorily dismissed the writ petition – The award
of the Labour Court and the judgment of the High Court, were per
se without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable – Case remanded
to the Labour Court, with direction to afford the appellant an
opportunity to lead evidence to prove the misconduct alleged by
them in the written statement against the respondent and depending
upon the findings, the Labour Court to decide the issue of termination
– Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – ss.10, 11, 11-A.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  The Labour Court committed an error in not
framing a “preliminary issue” for deciding the legality of domestic
enquiry and further having found fault in the domestic inquiry
[2018] 2 S.C.R. 267
267
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
268
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
committed another error when it did not allow the appellant to
lead independent evidence to prove the misconduct/charge on
merits and straightaway proceeded to hold that it was a case of
illegal retrenchment and hence the respondents’ termination is
bad in law.  [Para 24][274-H; 275-A]
2. The Labour Court could treat the respondent’s
termination as “retrenchment” much less an “illegal
retrenchment”. The Labour Court failed to notice the definition
of retrenchment in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act
which, in clear terms, provides that retrenchment does not include
termination of the service if it is imposed by way of punishment.
[Para 25][275-B]
3. In this case, the respondent’s services were terminated
by the appellant by way of punishment after holding a departmental
enquiry and therefore, the termination in question could never
be regarded as “retrenchment”. The Labour Court was,
therefore, wholly wrong in treating the termination of the
respondent as “retrenchment”. [Para 26][275-C]
4. The Labour Court held on facts that the respondent had
worked for 240 days in one calendar year.  It is not proper to set
aside this factual finding. Indeed, it is due to this finding, the
respondent is held entitled to claim protection of Labour Laws.
[Para 27][275-D]
5. The High Court while deciding the appellant’s writ
petition did not take note of any legal issues mentioned above
and cursorily dismissed the writ petition. The award of the Labour
Court and judgment of the High Court are, therefore, held per se
without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. [Paras 28, 29][275-
E-F]
7.  The award of the Labour Court set aside to the extent
indicated above and the judgment of the High Court and remand
the case to the Labour Court. [Para 30][275-F-G]
8. The Labour Court will now afford the appellant (employer)
an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the misconduct alleged
by them in the written statement against the respondent and
depending upon the findings, which the Labour Court would record
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
269
on the issue of misconduct, the issue of termination would be
decided in the light of the observations made in the judgment.
[Para 31][275-G-H]
Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. &
Anr. AIR 1979 SC 1653; Delhi Cloth & General Mills
Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh 1972 (Lab IC) 573 : [1972] 3
SCR 29 – relied on.
Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Their Workmen
AIR 195

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