M/S CIPLA LTD. AND ORS. versus RIPU DAMAN BHANOT AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 12-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS CIPLA LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
RIPU DAMAN BHANOT AND ANR. 
APRIL 12, 1999 
B 
(S. SAGI-HR AHMAD AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Departmental Enquiry-Assistance of an Advocate-Medical 
C Representative-Misconduct-Departmental enquiry-Termination of 
service-On challenge, Labour Court holding that termination illegal and· 
void as assistance of Advocate not granted-On appeal, Held, service rules 
only provide for assistance of a co-representative of choice in departmental 
proceedings-Thus, Labour Court not justified in holding that employee 
D entitled to assistance of an Advocate-Matter remanded to Labour Court 
with a direction that' a11 the issues be decided together. 
Termination from service-Order issued by General Manager 
(Marketing) who was not the appointing authority-Labour Court holding 
the termination order bad as it was npt issued by competent authority-
E Validity of-Held, Labour Court not justified in dismissing the submission of 
the management that General Manger (Marketing) was an officer superior 
in rank to the appointing authority without even referring to service rules 
on the point-Thus, findings of the Labour Court not sustained 
Respondent, a Medical Representative with the appellant Pharmaceutical 
F company was charge-sheeted and terminated from service after holding a 
departmental enquiry. On challenge, Labour Court held that the termination 
order passed by the appellant was wholly illegal and void as the respondent 
was not allowed the assistance of an Advocate. It further held that the order 
of termination was not passed by the appointing authority and therefore, it 
G was bad. The appellant-company's appeal before the High Court was dismissed 
Hence the present appeal. 
The contention of the appellant was that since the Service Rules 
applicable to the respondent specifically provided that he can have the 
assistance of a co-representative in the departmental enquiry, the Labour 
H Court was wrong in holding that the respondent was entitled to the assistance 
582 
. -""-.. 
-
CIPLA LTD. v. RIPU DAMAN BRANOT 
583 
of an advocate. 
A 
The contention of the respondent was that though the Service Rules 
allow the assistance of a co-representative in the departmental enquiry, the 
respondent, nevertheless, was entitled to be represented by a practising 
Advocate in the departmental proceedings as the questions involved in those 
proceedings were complicated which could not be tackled by the respondent B 
as he was not aware of the basic principles of legal proceedings or their 
implications, or, for that matter, the manner in which those proceedings were 
to be conducted. 
Allowing the appeal, thi~ Court 
HELD : 1. The relevant Service Rules only indicate that a person 
against whom the departmental proceedings have been initiated will be entitled 
to avail of the assistance of a co-representative of his choice in those 
proceedings. Thus, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the 
respondent-employee is entitled to the assistance of an Advocate. (587-D] 
Kalindi and Ors. v. Tata locomotive & Engineering Company ltd., 
AIR (1960) SC 914 = (1960) 3 SCR 407; Dunlop Rubber Company v. 
Workmen, (1965) 2 SCR 139 =AIR (1965) SC 1392 = (1965) 1 LLJ 426; 
Crescent Dyes and Chemicals ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993] 2 SCC 115 
c 
D 
= [1992) Suppl. 3 SCR 559 and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. E 
Maharashtra Genl. Kamgar Union & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 626, relied on. 
2. The findings of the Labour Court that the order of termination was 
bad for the reasons that it was not issued by the Personnel Manager who was 
the appointing authority of the respondent b'ut was issued by the General 
Manager (Marketing) who was not competent cannot be sustained as in p 
recording this finding, the Labour Court does not refer to Service Rules 
which ought to have been done as it was pointed out to him that the General 
Manager (Marketing) was an Officer superior in rank to the Personnel 
Manager but the Labour Court brushed aside the submission on the ground 
that nothing was brought on record to indicate that the General Manager 
(Marketing) was superior in rank. (588-B] 
G 
3. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court with a direction that 
all the issues be decided together without spliting them into preliminary or 
non-preliminary issues. (588-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2230 of H 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999) 2 S.C.R . 
. A 1999. 
From the Judgment

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