MANAGEMENT OF AUROFOOD PVT. LTD. versus S. RAJULU

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1080 · Decided: 03-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 1080 
Ir-
A 
MANAGEMENT OF AUROFOOD PVT. LTD. 
' 
v. 
S. RAJULU 
(Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2006) 
8 
APRIL 3, 2008 
(TARUN CHATIERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
• 
t 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
c 
Misconduct - Workman allegedly misbehaved and used 
filthy language against superiors including a lady officer -
Dismissed from service - Correctness of - Held: Correct -
Even the High Court has found the charges proved, though 
D trivial -There exists bitter relations between the parties -
Incumbent has not been reinstated in service in terms of the 
orders of the High Court and not in service since 1981 - Under 
-; 
~ 
the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to foist a 
cantankerous and abrasive workman on appellant-company 
E 
- Appellant directed to make payment of Rupees ten lacs as 
compensation to workmen in full and final settlement of the 
claim - Directions issued. 
Constitution of India -Article 136 - Scope of- Discussed. 
F 
Respondent was working as a Packer with the 
appellant-company. He was put under suspension 
allegedly for not discharging duties properly and also for 
'f 
misbehaving with the superiors. A charge-sheet was 
served upon him alleging the charges of misconduct, 
however, he continued to use foul and filthy language and 
G threatened the senior officers of dire consequences if any 
adverse report was made against him. He was also served 
a second charge-sheet for allegedly misbehaving with a 
lady Officer. A domestic enquiry was conducted against 
<'. 
him, which indicted him on both the charges. The 
H 
1080 
MANAGEMENT OF AUROFOOD PVT. LTD. v. 
1081 
S.RAJULU 
management accepted the findings of the enquiry officer A 
and took a tentative decision to impose the punishment 
of dismissal in terms of the Standing Orders. A show-
cause notice was also served to him. The reply furnished 
by the delinquent was found unsatisfactory and he was 
dismissed from service. The Government declined to refer B 
tJ 
the dispute for adjudication. The respondent thereafter 
moved a representation and the matter was referred to 
the Labour Court. The Labour Court passed an award 
holding the finding of enquiry Officer justified. Aggrieved, 
the delinquent filed a writ petition in the High Court. Single c 
Judge of the High Court observed that the misconduct, 
even if held to be proved, really amounted to the use of 
"unparliamentary language" and was trivial in nature and 
the punishment of dismissal was not justified alid the 
punishing authority had without notice to the respondent 
D 
workman, taken his antecedents into account. Single 
~ 
Judge of the High Court directed the reinstatement of the 
respondent with full back wages. An appeal filed 
thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the 
Division Bench of the High Court Hence the present 
appeal. 
E 
Appellant-employer contended that the Single Judge 
having found the domestic enquiry against the workman 
was properly conducted and that the workman indeed 
was guilty of misbehaviour, there was no justification in F 
interfering with the quantum of the punishment by the High 
'1 
Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 
of the Constitution of India; that the High Court was wrong 
in its finding that the punishing authority was not justified 
in taking into account the antecedents of the workman 
respondent as he had not been given the opp~rtunity to G 
rebut the allegations; and that very grave charges had 
been levelled against the respondent which included the 
. 
~ 
use of filthy language in the presence of a lady supervisor 
and no interference ought to have been made in the writ 
jurisdiction. 
H 
1082 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 5 S.C.R. 
...... 
A 
Respondent-employee submitted that the enquiry 
conducted against him was a biased one as the 
observation of the enquiry officer that the evidence given 
by the supervisor was to be preferred vis-a-vis the 
evidence given by respondent workman was, on the face 
B of it, unacceptable as each piece of evidence had to be 
examined as per its merit; and that the observation clearly 
l 
pointed to the fact that the respondent had not been given 
a fair hearing and in this view of the matter, no interference 
with the impugned order was called for. 
c 
Dismissing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The questions of fact which have been 
decided by the High Court call for no interference by this 
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution

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