MANAGEMENT, PANDIYAN ROADWAYS CORP. LID. versus N. BALAKRISHNAN

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 873 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

-
MANAGEMENT, PANDIY AN ROADWAYS CORP. LID. 
A 
v. 
N. BALAKRISHNAN 
MAY 15, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Misconduct-Disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal 
proceedings-Effect of acquittal in criminal proceedings on punishment C 
imposed in the disciplinary proceedings-Two lines of Supreme Court 
decisions operating in the field-Discussed. 
Dismissal-Charges of theft against workman-Respondent-
Disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings initiated against D 
him-Respondent found1guilty in Disciplinary proceedings and dismissed-
Dismissal not approved by Labour Court u/s. 33(2)(b) on ground of non-
compliance of a Certified Standing Order of employer-Corporation-
Respondent was thereafter taken back in service and since then he is 
continuing in service-Held: Standing Order in question though imperative 
in character, could be deviated from in a given situation-However, there is E 
another aspect-Respondent, in the meanwhile had been acquitted in the 
criminal proceedings-Further, he is merely a class IV employee and was not 
charged with an offence of criminal breach of trust-In the circumstances, no 
case made out for exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. I 36-
Jndustrial Disputes Act, /947-s.33(2)(b)-Constitution of India-Art. 136. F 
Interpretation of Statutes-Statutory provision may be substantive or 
procedural-If it is substantive, requirements laid down in the statute 
ordinarily be complied with-However, when provisions contain procedural 
matter, substantial compliance thereof would serve the purpose. 
Respondent is a Class IV employee in Appellant-corporation. Charges G 
of theft were levelled against him p,rsuant to which Disciplinary as well as 
criminal proceedings were initiated. In the disciplinary proceedings, 
Respondent was found guilty and thereafter dismissed from service. 
873 
H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant filed application for approval of the order of dismissal in 
terms of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but the approval 
was not granted by the Labour Court on the ground that in passing the said 
order of dismissal, Clause 17(5) of the Certified Standing Orders of the 
Appellant-corporation was not complied with. Meanwhile, criminal proceedings 
initiated against the Respondent ended in his acquittal. Appellant filed writ 
B petition which was allowed by a Single Judge of the High Court. Division 
Bench of High Court set aside the order of Single Judge. Hence the present 
appeal 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. On a plain reading of Clause 17(5) of the Standing Orders 
of the Corporation and particularly in view of the fact that the word "shall" 
has been used therein,primafacie it would be construed to be imperative in 
character. It may, however, be held to be directory in certain situation. While 
construing a statute of this nature, the context plays an important role. 
D Interpretation of a statute would also depend upon the fact situation obtaining 
in the case. There are, however, certain exceptions to the said rule. 
(Paras 11 and 12) (879-8, C, DJ 
1.2. There cannot also be any doubt that ordinarily consequences flowing 
'!' 
from contravention or an imperative character of a statute has to be given 
E effect to. A statutory provision may be substantive or procedural. If it is 
substantive, the requirements laid down in the statute should ordinarily be 
complied with. However, when the provisions contain a procedural matter, 
substantial compliance thereof would serve the purpose. 
[Para 15) [881-GJ 
F 
1.3. Applicatio.n of a statute or principle of law may vary from case to 
case. Only because the statute is imperative, it may not necessarily lead to a 
declaration that the order impugned is a nullity. 
[Paras 16 and 171 [882-Al 
G 
1.4. Ordinarily, although sub-clause (5) of Clause (17) of the Certified 
Standing Orders is required to be complied with, the same, would not mean 
that in a given situation, there cannot be any deviation therefrom. In a case 
where dismissal or re1111>val of service is to be ordinarily followed, e.g. in a 
case of grave misconduct like misappropriation, strict enforcement of the rule 
may not be insisted upon. While saying so, one is not oblivious of the law that 
H an executive agency is ordinarily bound by the standard by which it professes 
• 
-
MANAGEMENT,PANDIYANROADWAYSCORP LID" N BALAKRISHNAN 
875 
its actions to

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