PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. versus RAWEL SINGH

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 652 · Decided: 29-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 652 
I· 
~ 
. " 
A 
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. 
v. 
RAWEL SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 1664 of 2008) 
B 
FEBRUARY 29, 2008 
-
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ] 
• 
.... 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.11A - Dismissal -
Unauthorised absence of workman from duty - Challenge to, 
c on the ground that enquiry was unfair - Reinstatement with 
back wages by courts below - On appeal held: Enquiry could 
not be said to be contrary to law or in violation of principles of 
natural justice and fair play - It is not a case of not extending 
opportunity to employee but not availing of opportunity by 
D employee - It was the duty of workman to co-operate with the 
enquiry and participate in disciplinary proceedings but he 
>-
• 
failed to do so - Thus, Labour court erred in holding that 
enquiry was violative of natural justice - However, it rightly 
recorded the finding that dismissal of workman on the ground 
E of absence for few days was grossly disproportionate and 
excessively high - Therefore, order of reinstatement calls for 
no interference, however, award of back wages set aside. 
The respondent-workman remained absent from duty 
for few days without sanction of leave. He was served 
F with a notice but he did not join duty. Charge sheet was 
issued. Enquiry was instituted. Respondent did not 
appear before the Enquiry Officer though he was aware 
of the same. Enquiry was held ex parte and the Enquiry 
Officer proved the charges. Respondent submitted his 
G reply but did not remain present. The Disciplinary 
Authority passed termination order of workman. 
Respondent filed a suit challenging the termination order. 
Trial court set aside the termination order since it was 
• 
~ 
violative of the principles of natural justice and passed 
H 
652 
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. RAWEL SINGH 
653 
• 
"' 
l' 
the order of reinstatement. It granted liberty to the A 
Corporation to hold fresh inquiry on the same charges. 
Appellate Court upheld the order and the respondent was 
reinstated with all the benefits. Subsequently, fresh inquiry 
was instituted. Respondent was issued notice but he did 
not participate in the enquiry and the enquiry was held B 
ex-parte. Respondent also did not co-operate with the 
.. 
second enquiry and it was proceeded ex-pa rte. Thereafter, 
~ 
respondent was dismissed from service. Respondent-
workman raised a Reference. The Labour Court passed 
an award in favour of respondent. High Court upheld the c 
award. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is true that the respondent-workman 
approached Civil Court against the termination order and D 
.. 
~ 
the suit filed by him came to be allowed and the decree 
was confirmed in appeal. But it is equally true that liberty 
was granted to the Corporation to initiate proceedings 
afresh on the same charges and hence initiation of 
proceedings could not be said to be illegal or contrary to E 
law. From the record, it is clear that notice was issued to 
the respondent and it was received by him, he filed his 
reply, he also appeared before the Enquiry Officer but 
' 
subsequently he did not remain present and absented 
himself. If, in the light of the above facts, Enquiry Officer F 
was obliged to proceed with the enquiry ex parte, it could 
not be said that by doing so, the Enquiry Officer had 
committed an error either of fact or of law and the 
enquiry proceedings were liable to be quashed. [Para 12] 
[659-F-H; 660-A] 
G 
1.2 With regard to supply of documents, record 
' ~ 
reveals that the documents had been supplied to the 
workman and the said fact had been admitted by him. His 
case, however, was that due to heavy rain, all the 
documents were destroyed 'which necessitated supply H 
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
• 
A of fresh documents. But as observed by the Enquiry 
~ . 
Officer, the workman was asked as to whether he required 
any document but the workman replied in the negative. 
He could have continued to appear before. the Enquiry 
Officer, got the documents, if he wanted, and participated 
B in the enquiry. However, he deliberately did not do so. 
lnspite of service of show cause notice, the respondent 
failed to appear at the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer had 
• 
to proceed with the enquiry in absence of the respondent. 
.,_ 
[Para.13] [660-A-E] 
c 
1.3. The charge as to unauthorized absence of the 
respondent is duly established from the record. All the 
charges can be said to

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