LexM.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. versus S. K. YADAV
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 665
M.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.
A
~
v.
S. K. YADAV
(Civil Appeal No.7312 of 2008)
DECEMBER 16, 2008
8
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1_961- ss. 31(3), 61 and para 12 cl.(3), (4) para
8 cl(b) - Unauthorised absence for more than two years -
c
Penalty of reduction of pay to its minimum and stoppage of
increments for five years imposed - Set aside by courts below
- Interference with - Held: Order of labour court setting aside
penalty imposed not interfered with - As regard grant of back
wages, unauthorised absence for a long time is serious
D
misconduct - In case order on application by workman for
-...-
grant of leave is not passed within the period specified,
ultimate order would not be vitiated - It is directory in nature
- Labour Court proceeded on a wrong basis that by not
refusing to grant leave, it would be deemed to have been
E
granted - In the interest of justice, period of absence to be
treated as period on extraordinary leave and unauthorized
leave without pay - Salary already paid to be adjusted
accordingly.
Respondent-employee remained unauthorisedly
F
absent on and from 10.9.1991 upto 1.12.1993. Disciplinary
1
proceeding was initiated against him. Penalty of
reduction of pay to its minimum and stoppage of
increments for period of five years was imposed.
Respondent filed an application. -Both the Labour Court
and the Industrial Tribunal held the respondent was not G
unauthorisedly absent and set aside the penalty
)
imposed. High Court also upheld the order. Hence the
present appeal.
<(
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
665
H
666
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A
HELD: 1.1. The Standing Order framed in terms of
Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1961 has the force of a statute. Paragraph
12 of the Standing Order provides for disciplinary action
on the ground of commission of misconduct on the part
8 of an employee. Clause (4) of Paragraph 12 thereof
provides that no punishment shall be imposed on an
employee unless proved g·uilty of misconduct in an
enquiry conducted in the manner specified therein.
Punishments which can be imposed upon a delinquent
C employee have been provided in Clause (3) of Paragraph
12 of the Standing Order. The Labour Court opined that
the punishment imposed upon. the respondent had not
been prescribed in the Standing Order. The Labour Court
. in terms of the provisions of the Act exercises jurisdiction
as is specified therein. It was entitled to enter into the
D question of fact as also the legality or otherwise of the
disciplinary proceedings and the quantum of punishment
imposed. The order of the Labour Court setting aside the
penalty imposed upon the respondent is not interfered
E
with. [Paras 13 and 14JJ672-G-H; 673-A-C]
b
1.2. Unauthorised absence for a long time is a
serious misconduct. If respondent was aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the decision of the management in
regard to closing down of the 'Dispensary', he should
have taken recourse to such remedies which were
F available to him. He could have gone on leave provided
the same was due to him in law. In terms of Clause (b) of
Paragraph 8 of the Standing. Order the applications filed
· by the workman were required to be considered and an
order thereon should have been passed within the period
G specified therein. [Para 16] [673-D-E]
1.3. Where a public authority is required to pass an
order in terms of the statute within a period stipul.ated
therefore, non-compliance whereof would not vitiate the
ultimate order, must be held to be directory in nature and
H not imperative. [Para 17] [673-G]
'
'
M.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. S.K.
667
YADAV
1.4. The Labour Court proceeded on a wrong
A
~
premise that by not refusing to grant leave, the same
would be deemed to have been granted. The Standing
Order does not contemplate such a situation. The
question as to whether leave has been granted or not will
again depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
B
case and no legal inference can be drawn therefrom.
{Para 18] (673-H; 674-A]
,...,
1.5. In the instant case, interest of justice would be
subserved if the period from 11.09.1991 and 30.11.1993
during which the respondent did not perform any duty c
shall be treated to be period on leave available to him in
law. The type of leave would be Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.