LexM/S. OBETTEE PVT. LTD. versus MOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. - MIS. OBETIEE PVT. LTD. A v. MOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN SEPTEMBER 23,2005 [ARIJITPASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] B Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Termination of workman-Apology tendered by some workmen accepted by the employer-Workman not apologising cannot contend that there was implied apology on ground that C he did not indulge in any unlawful activity. Constitution of India, 1950--Article 14-Distinctive features-Same yardstick cannot be applied in case of persons standing on different footing- Workmen who had tendered apology stands on different footing from the one not apologising-Hence he cannot claim equality and make grievance of D discrimination. Respondent-workman along with other workmen of appellant-employer went on strike. Employer warned them not to go on strike but they did not pay any heed. Chargesheet was given and respondent-workman was suspended along with 2 others namely Chunnu and Vakil. Thereafter, respondent and E other two, gave assurance to perform their duties diligently and not to indulge in activity like strike and thereby requested for withdrawal of their suspension. Employer revoked their suspension without prejudice to the right to hold the enquiry. Domestic enquiry was instituted and charges were leveled against F 5 persons including the concerned respondent. During enquiry, Chunnu and Vakil accepted the correctness of the charges leveled against them and tendered apology, based on which employer did not proceed against them. However, respondent-workman continued to contest the charges leveled against him. Tribunal highlighted the distinctive features, so far as the respondent- G workman and the other two namely Chunnu and Vakil were concerned, and held that the termination of the respondent-workman was legal and proper. The High Court accepted the stand of the respondent-workman and held that the distinction made by the Tribunal was artificial. Hence the present M9 H 450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A appeal Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: When all the persons do not stand on the same footing, same yardstick cannot be applied. Chunnu and Vakil stood at different footing so B far as the respondent-workman is concerned. He had, unlike the other two, continued to justify his action. That was clearly distinctive feature which the High Court failed to properly appreciate. The employer accepted to choose the unqualified apology given and regrets expressed by Chunnu and Vakil. It cannot be said that the employer had discriminated so far as the respondent- workman is concerned because he had tried to justify his action for which C departmental proceedings were initiated. Also, it is not that Chunnu and Vakil were totally exonerated. On the contrary, letter of warning was issued to them. [452-H; 453-A) D Union of India v. Parma Nanda, [1989] 2 SCC 177, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 817 of2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.2004 of the Allahabad High Court iri C.W.P. No. 19459of1988. P.P. Rao, Amit Bhasin, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Sheenam Parwanda E and Bhargava V. Desai for the Appellant. F G VJ. Francis, Anupam Mishra and P.I. Jose for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court holding that the termination order as passed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer' was not sustainable in law. Background facts in a nutshell are as under: The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'Workman') filed a writ application for quashing the order dated 23rd April, 1988 passed by the Industrial Tribunal (I) Allahabad (in short the 'Tribunal') holding that the termination of his service with effect from 11.4.1984 was reasonable and legal. A reference was made by the State Government in exercise of its power under H Section 4(K) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the .. OBETTEE PVT. LTD. v. MOHD. SHAFIQ KHAN [PASA Y AT, J.] 451 'U.P. Act') for adjudication by the Tribunal. The reference which was made A on 21st June, 1996 was registered as Adjudication Case No. 39of1986. After framing issues on the basis of the statement of payment and the written statement filed by the parties, initially the Tribunal held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. However, the employer was granted liberty to adduce
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.