L.K.VERMA versus H.M.T. LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 31-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

L.K.VERMA 
A 
~ 
v. 
>· 
H.M.T. LTD. AND ANR. 
JANUARY 31, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
B 
' 
Labour Law: 
~ 
U.P. Factories (Safety Officers) Rules, 1984: Rules 8 and 14-Safety 
Officer-Misconduct-Suspension-Dismissal-Safety Officer using abusive c 
language and threatening superior officer-Placed under suspension-Order 
challenged before Labour Commissioner-Meanwhile dismissal order passed-
Appeal allowed-Writ petition by employer allowed by High Court-Held, 
order of suspension was not passed as a measure of penalty-Availability of 
alternative remedy not a bar to exercise judicial review-Verbal abuse is D 
'sufficient to inflict a punishment of dismissal-Constitution of India-Article 
__, 
226-Alternative remedy-Maintainability of writ petition-Service Law-
Misconduct-Suspension followed by dismissal. 
Evidence-Things admitted need not be proved. 
Appellant was working as a Safety Officer in the respondent Company. E 
He was placed under suspension on the charge of misconduct. He filed an 
appeal before the Labour Commissioner under Rule 14 of the U.P. Factories 
(Safety Officers) Rules, 1984. Meanwhile the appellant was dismissed from 
" 
service. The Labour Commissioner allowed the appeal. The writ petition filed 
~ 
by the employer was allowed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the employee filed F 
the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the action of the employer in 
initiating departmental proceedings against him was actuated by malice; that 
in view of the alternative remedy available to the respondent under Rule 14(3) 
of the Rules, the writ petition was not maintainable; that suspension being G 
one of the punishments within the meaning of Rule 8 of the Rules, order of 
:· 
dismissal could not have not been passed for the same charge; and that, in 
~; 
any event, quantum of punishment was wholly disproportionate. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
~ 
959 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
960 
SUPREME COl iRT REPORTS 
[20061 I S.C.R. 
HELD: I. It cannot be said that the disciplinary proceedings were 
actuated by malice. Evidently, the disciplinary authority was not biased against 
the appellant nor any malice has been attributed to him.1965-E-FI 
2.1. Though in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of the U.P. Factories 
(Safety Officers) Rules, 1984 an appeal was maintainable before the State 
Government, but availability of an alternative forum for redressal of 
grievances itself would not be a bar to exercise the power of judicial review 
vested in the High Court. Despite existence of an alternative remedy, a writ 
court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review inter alia 
in cases where the court or the tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction or for 
enforcement of a fundamental right or if there has been a violation of principle 
of natural justice or where vires of the act is in question. In such 
circumstances, the alternative remedy has been held not to operate as a bar. 
1965-G; 967-G-H] 
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., 
(1998] I SCC I; Sanjana M Wig (Ms.) v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd, 
12005] 8 SCC 242 and State ojH.P. and Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cementiid 
and Anr., (2005] 6 SCC 499, relied on. 
2.2. The Labour Commissioner misdirected himself in passing the order 
by which he allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant. Whereas, on the 
E one hand, he noticed that appellant had stated that during the preliminary 
enquiry he made the utterances owing to tension in his mind, he opined that 
no evidence had been produced against him for which he has been dismissed 
from service. It is now well-settled that things admitted need not be proved. 
Once the appellant accepted that he made utterances which admittedly lack 
civility and he also threatened a superior officer, it was for him to show that 
F 
~e later on felt remorse therefor. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion 
that both the Management and the witnesses corroborated each other's 
statements and although they had been cross-examined thoroughly, no 
contradiction was found in their statements in regard to the said charge. 
(966-F-H; 967-A-B] 
G 
Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vil~1·alaya Sangathan and Anr. v. Girdharilal 
Yadav., [2004] 6 SCC 325, relied on. 
2.3. In any event, once a writ petition has been entertained and 
determined on merits, the appellate court, except in rare cases, would not 
interfere therewith only on the ground of existence of alternative re

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