M/S. TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LIMITED versus N.K. SINGH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 08-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
-
MIS. TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LIMITED 
A 
v. 
N.K. SINGH 
NOVEMBER 8, 2006 
[ARIJITPASAYAT ANDS.H.KAPADIA,JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, I947: 
Workman-Allegation of misconduct and assault against-FIR-
Domestic inquiry-Dismissed from service-Dispute-Labour Court held that 
though the charge of misconduct levelled against the workman established 
B 
c 
but order of his dismissal from service was disproportionate to the charge 
proved-It directed reinstatement of the workman with payment of half of the D 
back wages-Challenge to--Modifying the Award, Single Judge of High 
Court directing payment of half of the back wages from the date of the 
award-Letters Patent Appeal dismissed by the High Court-On appeal, 
Held: Misconduct as alleged was of very grave nature-Labour Court found 
inquiry to be fair and proper-Both the Courts below have not found the 
misconduct of any minor nature-Finding on facts establishing the charge E 
of misconduct not disturbed by the Labour Court-Under the circumstances, 
leniency shown by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the delinquent 
would in fact encourage indiscipline and also not supported by reason, 
hence, unwarranted-Order of dismissal from service as passed in the 
disciplinary proceedings stand restored-Penal Code, 
1860; F 
Section 307 rlw Section 34 ·and Section 311. 
The respondent-workman, working as Assistant Store Keeper, was in 
unauthorized occupation of quarter belonging to the appellant-company. A suit 
for eviction filed by the appellant-company was decreed in its favour. When 
the Town Warden went to execute the decree along with Nazir of Civil Court, G 
he was allegedly assaulted ~y the respondent. First Information Report was 
also lodged with the Police against the respondent alleging commission of 
offences punishable under Sections 311and307 read with Section 34 of the 
Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the domestic inquiry the respondent was found 
guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service. A dispute was raised by 
755 
II 
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A the respondent and reference was made by the State Government under Section 
lO(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the meantime, the respondent 
was acquitted in the criminal case on the ground of lack of evidence. The 
Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry was fair, proper and in accordance 
with the principles of natural justice. An award was passed by the Labour 
B Court holding that though the charge of misconduct levelled against the 
respondent was established, the order of dismissal was disproportionate to 
the charge proved. Hence, it directed reinstatement of the workman with 
payment of half of the back wages. Appellant-company filed a writ petition 
before the High Court. The Single Judge partly allowed the petition directing 
that half of the back wages was to be paid from the date of award. Letters 
C Patent Appeal filed by the Company was dismissed by the High Court. Hence 
the present appeal. 
The appellant contended that the High Court has fallen into grave error 
by setting aside the order of dismissal and directing reinstatement of the 
Workmen and payment of 50% back wages; that the respondent was guilty 
D of misconduct; that the Labour Court having found that the domestic inquiry 
was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice should 
not have interfered with the order of dismissal; and that the High Court clearly 
missed to notice that the charges were serious in nature. 
E 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.1. The Labour Court has found the inquiry to be fair and proper. 
The conduct highlighted by the management and established in inquiry was 
certainly of very grave nature. The Labour Court and the High Court have 
not found that misconduct was of any minor nature. On the contrary, the 
finding on facts that the acts complained of were established has not been 
disturbed. That being so, the leniency shown by the Labour Court is clearly 
unwarranted and would in fact encourage indiscipline. Without indicating any 
reason as to why it was felt that the punishment was disproportionate, the 
Labour Court should not have passed the order in the manner done. 
(759-D-E) 
G 
1.2. The case of another workman as taken into consideration by the 
Court was not on the similar footing as the incumbent in that case was one of 
the persons instigating whereas the respondent in the pr

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