M/S. AMRIT VANASPATL CO.LTD. versus KHEM CHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 481 · Decided: 12-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. AMRIT VANASPA Tl CO.LTD. 
A 
v. 
KHEM CHAND AND ANR. 
JULY 12, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Judicial review-Scope of-
Dismissal of workman for serious misconduct-Labour Court upheld 
dismissal-Writ petition-High Court interfered with the findings of Labour C 
Court and ordered reinstatement with back-wages-Justification of-Held: 
High Court not justified in interfering with the factual findings of the Labour 
Court which were based on appreciation of facts adduced. before it by 
leading evidence-Labour Laws. 
Labour Laws-Jurisdiction of Labour Court while adjudicating dispute D 
relating to dismissal-Dismissal pursuant to inquiry-Labour Court found 
that the inquiry conducted was irregular-Permitted the Management to 
produce additional evidence before Court to prove the charges-Justification 
of-Held, Justified. 
There was strike in the factory of Appellant. Respondent No.I-workman E 
allegedly threatened to kill senior officers of the factory like Chemist and 
other co-workmen willing to work, and thereby obstructed work in the factory. 
Based on the inquiry report, Disciplinary Authority dismissed Respondent 
No.I. Labour Court found the inquiry to be defective but permitted the 
management to adduce additional evidence and, on finding the charges against F 
Respondent No. I to be proved, upheld the order of dismissal. 
High Court ordered re-instatement with backwages and other benefits 
by allowing the writ petition of Respondent No.I. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Even if no inquiry has been held by the employer or the inquiry 
held is found to be defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the 
legality and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity to the employer 
and employee to adduce evidence before it. It is open to the employer to adduce 
481 
G 
H 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
· A evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it is open to the employee 
to adduce evidence contra. Hence, the submission of Respondent No.I, that 
the Labour Court having held that the domestic inquiry was irregular and 
illegal, ought not to have permitted the Management to produce additional 
evidence before the Court to prove the charges, has no merit. (488-D, E( 
B 
The Workmen of Mis Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd 
etc. v. The Management & Ors. etc., ( 1973( I SCC 813, relied on. 
2.1. The Labour Court in the concluding part of its award has held that 
the charges framed against the workman are charges of misconduct of serious 
C nature and, therefore, it agreed with the argument of Management that it was 
not in the interest of Management and industrial peace to retain such a person 
in service who was guilty of creating indiscipline in the factory which affects 
the production of the factory adversely. On the basis of the aforesaid 
discussion, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Management 
had succeeded in proving the charges against the workman before the Court. 
D Hence, the Labour Court held the dismissal of the work1.1an from service by 
the Management as justified, proper and lawful and the concerned workman 
was held to be not entitled to receive any benefit or relief. However, the High 
Court interfered with the factual and categorical findings of the Labour Court 
and ordered reinstatement with back wages and other benefits. (488-F-H( 
E 
2.2. The High Court while exercising powers under writ jurisdiction 
cannot deal with aspects like whether the quantum !Jf punishment meted out 
by the Management to a workman for a particular misconduct is sufficient or 
not. This a part, the High Court while exercising powers under the writ 
jurisdiction cannot interfere with the factual findings of the Labour Court 
F which are based on appreciation of facts adduced before it by leading evidence. 
The High Court has gravely erred in holding that the evidence of respondent 
no. I was not considered by the Labour Court and had returned finding that 
the evidence ofrespondent no.I did not inspire any confidence. The High Court 
is not right in intefering with the well considered order passed by the Labour 
Court confirming the o.rder of dismissal. (488-H; 489-A, Bl 
G 
3. Respondent no. I has now retired from service on superannuation on 
30.9.1996. He was dismissed from service for the misconduct alleged and 
proved against h

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