MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. versus M. MANI

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 09-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) I 1 S.C.R. 933 
·MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. 
A 
v. 
·M. MANI 
(Civil Appeal No.10766 of2013) 
NOVEMBER 09, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law - Dismissal - For commission of theft while on 
duty - Enquiry officer held both the respondents were involved in 
commission of theft - Appellant accepted report and dismissed the 
C 
respondents from service - This gave rise to filing of two cases -
One u/s. 379 TPC in the court of Magistrate and other by the 
respondents against the appellant in Labour Court challenging 
legality of their dismissal orders - Magistrate acquitted the 
respondents from the charge u/s. 379 TPC -' Labour Court held the 
departmental enquiry was properly held, however, since the D 
criminal case resulted in acquittal of the respondents, the 
departmental enquiry stood vitiated and therefore, ordered 
reinstatement of respondents in service with payment of full back 
wages - Aggrieved, appellant filed writ petition - Single judge of 
High Court set aside the award of the Labour Court and remanded E 
the case to Labour Court for deciding both matters afresh -
Division Bench set aside the order of the writ Court and directed 
reinstatement of the respondents - On appeal, held: Labour Court 
rightly held that the departmental enquiry conducted by the 
appellant was legal and proper - However, it committed an error in 
holding that the departmental enquiry got vitiated due to criminal 
F 
court's order which had acquitted the respondents from the charge 
of theft - There was no occasion for the Labour Court to examine 
this issue once the departmental enquiry was held 'legal and proper 
- Insofar punishment imposed by the appellant to the respondents 
is concerned, an act of theft committed by an employee while on 
G 
duty is a serious charge - Having regard to the nature of charge 
which stood proved in the enquiry, the order of dismissal from 
service was the appropriate punishment - Therefore, the impugned 
judgment set aside and the orders of dismissal held as legal and 
proper - Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 - s. IIA. 
H 
933 
934 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] ll S.C.R. 
Enquiry - Departmental enquiry and Criminal proceedings -
Held: Where the enquiry has been held independently of the criminal 
proceedings, acquittal in criminal Court i.1 of no avail - Even if a 
person stood acquitted by the criminal Court, domestic enquiry can 
still be held - the reason being that the standard of proof required 
in a domestic enquiry and that in criminal case are altogether 
different - In a criminal case, standard of proof required is beyond 
reasonable doubt while in a domestic enquiry, it is the 
preponderance of probabilities. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. The Labour Court held that, firstly, the 
departmental enquiry was properly held; secondly, the employer 
instead of holding an enquiry should have stayed it awaiting the 
outcome of the criminal case; thirdly, since the criminal case 
resulted in the acquittal of the respondents, the departmental 
enquiry stood vitiated as violating the principle of natural justice; 
D fourthly, since the employer did not lead any evidence in support 
of the charge, the charge remained unproved; and lastly, the 
dismissal orders are bad in law in the light of the four grounds 
and, therefore, the respondents be reinstated in service with 
payment of full back wages by the appellant. [Para 10] [940-C-D] 
E 
2. The Labour Court, having held and indeed rightly that 
the departmental enquiry conducted by the appellant was legal 
and proper committed an error in holding that the departmental 
enquiry got vitiated due to criminal court's order which had 
acquitted the respondents from the charge of theft. There was 
p 
no occasion for the Labour Court to examine this issue once the 
departmental enquiry was held legal and proper. The Labour 
Court, committed yet another error in holding that since the 
appellant failed to lead any evidence to prove the charge in Labour 
Court, therefore, the dismissal orders of respondents are liable 
to be set aside. This finding, was again not legally sustainable. 
G. [Para 16] [941-E-F] 
H 
3. Once the Labour Court upheld the departmental enquiry 
as being legal and proper then the only question that survived 
for consideration before the Labour Court was whether the 
punishment of "dismissal" imposed by the appellant to the 
MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT HEAVYELECTRICALS

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