MANAGEMENT OF PANITOLE TEA ESTATE versus THE WORKMEN

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 18-02-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

774 
MANAGEMENT OF PANITOLE TEA ESTATE· 
v. 
THE WORKMEN 
Febru°'ry 18, 1911 
[J. M. SHELAT AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J 
J,idust1·ial Dispute-Disniissal of worknJen-Order 
of 
reinstatcnH!lli 
b,y Labour Court-Reinstatemen~ of compensation-Circumstances justify-
ing reinstatemcnt-Constif,;tion of Indic, Art. 136---Interference by Supreme 
Court. 
In the course of a domestic enquiry on a charge of pilferage against B 
a part time clerk who was incharge of a godown of the appellant a chit 
was produced suggesting collusion with him of H another workman. The 
appellant ;Gstituted a domestic enquiry against the workman and he was 
dismissed. 
On a reference of the Industrial Dispute the Labour Court held 
that the contents of the chit were too vague and were procured only to 
harass the workman for no fault of his, that the domestic enquiry was 
violative of the principle of natural justice, and its findings perverse and· 
without a!)y evidence to support them. 
Consequently it ordered the re-
instatem.ent of the workman. The management appealed to his Court con-
tending that instead of reinstatement the workman should be paid com-
pensation. It also raised the plea that it had lost confidence in the work-
man. 
HELD : The present case is not one in which this Court would be justi-
fied in interfering, on appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution, with the 
order of 1he Tribunal. The ques.ion whether on setting aside the wrongful 
dismissal of a workman he should be reinstated or directed to be paid 
compensation is a matter within the judicial discretion of the Labour Court 
or the Tribunal, dealing with the industrial dispute, the general ru:" in the 
absence of any special Circumstances being of reinstatement. In exercising 
this discretion, fairplay towards the employee on the one--lnmd and interest 
of the employer, including considerations of discipline In the establishment, 
on the other, require to be duly safeguarded. This is necessary in the 
interest both of security of tenure of the employee and of smooth and 
harmonious working of the establishment. Legitimate ntere0 ts of ooth 
of them have to be kept in view if the order 'is expected to promote the 
desired objective of industrial peace and maximurrl possible production. The 
past record of the employee, the nature of the alleged conduction which 
the order of the employer is set aside, the nature of the duties perforn1ed 
by .the employee concerned and the nature of the industrial establishment 
are some of the broad relevant factors which require to be taken into 
-consideration. These factors are merely illusl'rative. Each case bas to be 
f decided on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can laid down to ct>ver 
generall} all cortceivable contingencies. Proper balance has to be main-
tained be1-n the coofficting claims of the employer and the employee 
without jeopardising the larger interests of industrial peace and progress. 
[780 DJ. 
There was no evidence to conclude that the management lost confidence 
in the wo1kman. If the workman is entitled as a general rule to be re-
instated after his wrongful dismissal is set aside apd on the facts if is not 
poss;ble to find cogent material on which the establishment can genuinely 
be considered to have lost confidence in the integrity of the workman. he 
A 
' 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
PANITOLE TEA ESTATE v. WORKMEN (Dua, J.) 
77fJ. 
A 
1s entitled to be reinstated. 
The suggestion that having regard to the 
nature oi the p<oceedings against the workman the management has lost 
confidence wa$ acceptable. [782 F] 
If the workman's dismissal was wrongful then merely because proceed-
ings for ,adjudication of the industrial dispute have taken a long time (I 0 
years) was by iti;elf no reason for not directing his reinstatement if it 
B 
was otherwise justified being in accordance with the normal rule. [782 G] 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1137 of 
1970. 
• 
Appeal by special leave f~om the award. dated qctober 30, 
1969 of the Labour Court of Assam ainll D1brugarh m Reference 
No. 20 of 1964. 
M. C. Chag/a and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant. 
K. P. Gupta, for the respondents. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Dua, 1. In this appeal special leave was limited to the ques-
tion whether relief by way of payment of compensation should 
not be substituted for the relief by way of reinstatement granted 
by the Labour Court to the workman, H. P. Bhagavati, Store 
Clerk. 
T

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