NAR SINGH PAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 29-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
NAR SINGH PAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 29, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25-F-Tennination of Service-
Carnal Labour acquired temporary status-Involvement in criminal case-
Order of tennination passed pending trial-Trial resulting in clear acquittal-
Order of tennination upheld by High Court and Tribunal-On appeal Held, 
order of tennination being punitive regular departmental enquiry was neces-
smy-Stigma of involvement in a criminal case disappears after acquittal-
Order pafsed on the basis of mere preliminary enquiry without issuing charge 
sheet and giving opportunity of being heard cannot be sustained-Reinstate-
ment ordered with payment of all arrears and consequential benefits. 
Retrenchment-Payment of retrenchment compensation after tennina-
tion-Acc~ptance of payment does not disentitle workman from challenging 
retrenchment-No constitutional rights or Fundamental rights surrendered-
No estoppel against exercise of Fundamental Rights. 
Constitution of India-Article 311-Retrenchment-Workmen entitled to 
certain benefits and constitutional protection after acquiring temporary status. 
Appellant, initially a casual labour had acquired the status of a 
temporary employee in the telephone department, was prosecuted under 
Sections 324, 427, 504 iPc. His services were terminated without holding a 
regular departmental enquiry after paying retrenchment compensation 
during the trial, in which he was ultimately acquitted. He accepted the 
amount and filed a petition before the Administrative Tribunal challenging 
the order of termination, which was dismissed. High Court dismissed his 
writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contended before this Court that as the order of 
termination was punitive in nature a regular departmental enquiry was 
H 
mandatory. 
752 
• 
N.S. PAL v. U.0.1. 
753 
. 
The respondents contended before this Court that the appellant was 
A 
involved in a criminal case so his services could be terminated under 
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act by a written notice along with 
retrenchment compensation. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. If an order had been passed by way of punishment and 
was punitive in nature, holding of a regular departmental enquiry be-
comes necessary and the services of the appellant could not have been 
terminated arbitrarily by paying retrenchment compensation. It is wholly 
incorrect that there is a choice between holding a regular departmental 
enquiry and termination of services by payment of retrenchment compen-
sation. The order having been passed on the basis of a preliminary 
enquiry and not on the basis of any regular departmental enquiry without 
issuing a charge sheet or giving an opportunity of hearing to the appel-
lant, cannot be sustained. (756-C-E; 757-H) 
Gujarat Steel Tubes /Jd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, [1980] 2 
sec 593, relied on. 
2. The appellant had acquired temporary status, entitling him to 
certain benefits and the constitutional protection envisaged by Article 311 
B 
c 
D' 
of the Constitution and other Articles dealing with services under the 
E 
Union of India. (756-F] 
3. It is not a correct approach that once retrenchment compensation 
was accepted, the appellant could not challenge his retrenchment. He had 
to sustain himself and his family and had no option except utilizing the said 
amount as there was_ no hope left for payment of salary in future. He never 
F 
surrendered his Constitutional rights and Fundamental Rights, as they 
cannot be bartered away. They cannot be compromised nor can there be 
any estoppel against the exercise of Fundamental Rights available under 
the Constitution. (759-D-F] 
4. The involvement of the appellant in a criminal case could not have 
G 
been made the basis for terminating his services. Since he was acquitted, 
and it was a clear acquittal, the stigma atfuched to him should have been 
treated to have disappeared. [759-B-C] 
\ 
5. The order of termination is quashed.\The appellant shall be put 
back in service with payment of all arrears up to date and other consequen· 
H 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
tial benefits under the rules. [760-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 2280 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.98 of the Delhi High Court 
B 
in C.W. No. 5534 of 1998. 
c 
D 
E 
F 

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