MANAGEMENT OF RITZ THEATRE (P) LTD. versus ITS WORKMEN

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 461 · Decided: 27-07-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
461 
We therefore hold, disagreeing with the High 
Court, and the Courts below, that the order of dis-
charge made by the Resident 
Engineer wa8' in 
exercise of the power validly delegated to him and 
that there has been· no breach of the Standing 
Orders by such action, 
We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the 
order passed by the High Court and direct that the 
appellant's application under Art. 226 of the Cons-
titution be allowed and the order made by the 
Assistant Labour Commissioner dated September 
10, 1958; ordering reinstatement of the respondent, 
Sambha Prasad Srivastava be set aside. There will 
be no order as to costs • 
Appeal allowed. 
1962 
J abalpur liJlectr ic 
'iupply Co, 
v. 
Sambhu PrMcd 
Sariustca 
DtUGupta J 
MANAGEMENT.O"B' RITZ THEATRE (P) LTD. 
1912 
' v. 
ITS WORKMEN 
(P. B. GAIBNDRAGADKAR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
· 
J. l{. MuDHOLKR, JJ.). 
· Industrial Dispute-Termination of relation o.f master anit 
.J servant-Proceaure-Domestic 
enquir.!/-Adrlitional 
evidenc.e 
before Tribunal-Powers of Tribunal regarding merits of case-
Scope 
of-Procedure' of departriientril 
enquiry-Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). 
The appellant is a company whi.-h carries on the busi-
ness of exhibiting cinema films in its theatre. The respon-
dents, Jai Jai Ram and Mohd. Mia, were its employees for 
the past many years. Charge-sheets were served on them and 
• the charges were enquired into by the Enquiry Officers 
appointed by the appellant, ,i\t the enquiry, the. appellant 
July27, 
JI anogem1nt 9.f · 
Ritz Theatr• (P) 
Ltd. 
•• 
Its Workmen 
462. SUPREMELCOURT.•REPORTS [1963] 
led evidence, both oral and documentry. Eleven witnesses 
w'ce examined 
on behalf of the appellant and an equal 
number of witnesses was examined on behalf of the rcspon: 
dents. The Enquiry Officer considered all the evidence led 
before him and came to the conclusion that the charges 
framed against the respondeJ:\tS, )lad been fully established. 
He recommended that the services of the respondents be 
dispensed with for misconduct. He also recommended the 
making of certain payment• to the respondents. The appellant 
accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and Jai Jai Ram 
was dismissed on 15th January, 1959, and Mohd. Mia on 1st 
May, 1959. 
The Delhi Administration referred the matter to th~ 
Industrial Tribunal for adjudication whether the respondents 
•hould be re-instated with full back wages or whether they 
were entitled to any other relief. 
When the case was heard 
before the Tribunal, the appellant asked for an opportunity 
r
to adduce additional evidence and the Tribunal allowed both 
• 
the partios to lead further evidence. The decision of the 
Tribunal was that the dismissal of Jai Jai Ram was not 
justified and the findings recorded against him at the depart-
mental enquiry were baseless. 
As regards Mohd. Mia, the 
Tribunal held that no order of dismissal had been served 
on him, and hence it cou Id not be said that his services had 
been duly terminated by an order of dismissal. On these 
grounds, the Tribunal ordered the reinstatement of both the 
respondents. The appellant came to this Court by •pedal 
leave. 
Helrl, that the order of dismissal passed against Jai 
Jai Ram was proper and valid. As regards Mohd. Mia, the 
appellant had failed to prove that the order of dismissal 
was served on him as required by law. 
The relationship of 
employer and employee can be effectively terminated not 
merely by the deoision of the employer. to. terminate 
t~e 
employee's services but by the commumcauon. of t.he said 
decision to the employee, and tnat was not done 1n this . case. 
Therefore, the appellant was directed . to pay to Mohd. 
Mia the wages to which he would have been entitled if he 
had been In actual employment from December I, 1958, to 
July 27, 1962, the date of the decision. 
As regards the scope of the powers of the Tribunal . it 
was held that it is only where the Tribunal is satisfied that 
a proper enquiry has not been held or that the enquiry having 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREM:E COURT REOORTB 
been held pr-0pcrly the findings recorded at such an enquh:y 
arc ·perverS'C ·that the'Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal ·with 
the merits ~f the dispute. The employer may rely on ·1he 
domestic enquiry in the 1irst instance, 8lld alternatively;and 
witaout .prejudice to his plea that the said enquiry Is ;proper 
and binding, may seek· to lead additional evidence. By 
adop

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