R. THIRUVIRKOLAM versus PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 18-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

R. THIRUV!RKOLAM 
A 
V. 
PRESIDING OFFICER AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 18, 1996 
(J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Dismissal-Defective domestic enquiry-Date of taking effect of C 
order-Employee dismissed after domestic enquiry on proof of misconduct-
Labour Court found domestic enquiry defective but on evidence adduced 
by employer it held misconduct as duly proved and punishment justified-
On appeals held: Even in such a case, order of dismissal operative from 
date of dismissal order and not from date of Labour Court's award 
D 
The appellant was employed as a technician with respondent 
No.2 and was dismissed from service.after a domestic inquiry on proof 
of misconduct. The appellant challenged his dismissal before the 
Labour Court. The Labour Court found the domestic inquiry to be 
defective and permitted the management to prove the misconduct. E 
On the basis of the evidence adduced before the Labour Court, it 
came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed was justified as 
the misconduct was duly proved. The appellant filed a writ petition 
before the High Court which was dismissed. Being aggrieved the 
appellant preferred the present appeal. 
The question before this Court was whether the dismissal would 
take effect from the date of order of the Labour Court or it would 
relate to the date of the order of dismissal passed by the employer. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I.I. The only point involved for decision in the appeal 
is concluded against the appellant by the Constitution Bench decision 
F 
G 
of this Court in Kalyani and the observations to the contrary in Gujarat 
Steel are, therefore, per incurium and not binding. The order of H 
687 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A punishment in the present case operated from the date when it was 
made by the employer and not from the date of Labour Court's award. 
1689 DE & 694 AB] 
l'.H. Kalyani \'.Mis. Air France, Calcutta, 1196412SCR104; D.C. 
Roy v. The /'residing Officer, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Court, Indore 
B and Ors., 119761 3 SCR 801 and Rambahu Vyankuji Kheragade v. 
Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation, [19951 Supp. 4 SCC 157, 
followed. 
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd, v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, 
C 11980] 2 SCR 146 and Desh Raj Gupta v. Industrial Tribunal IV, U.l' 
Lucknow and Anr. [1990[ Supp. 1 SCR 411, held per incuriam. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Wade: "Administrative Law," pp. 339 to 344 7th. Edn., referred 
to. 
1.2. The operation of the order of punishment made by the 
employer does not depend on its confirmation by the Labour Court 
to make it operative. Unless set aside by a competent authority, the 
order of punishment made by the employer continues to be effective. 
[692 AB[ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 54of1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.4.91 of the Madras High 
Court in W.A. No. 590 of 1991. 
Jitendra Sharma, Ms. Gunwant Lara and P. Gaur for the Appellant. 
N .B. Shetye and Ambrish Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
J.S. VERMA, J. The appellant was employed as a technician ._.;ith 
M/s Madras Fertilizers Ltd.-Respondent No.2. He was dismissed from 
service after a domestic inquiry on November 18, 1981 on proof of 
H misconduct. The appellant challenged his dismissal before the Labour Court. 
R. THIRUVIRKOLAM v. PRESIDING OFFICER [J.S. VERMA, J.] 
689 
The Labour Court found the domestic inquiry to be defective and permitted A 
' 
the management to prove the misconduct before it. On the basis of the 
evidence adduced before the Labour Court, it came to the conclusion that 
the punishment imposed was justified as the misconduct was duly proved. 
The Labour Court's order is dated December 11, 1985. Appellant then 
filed a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed by a 
Single Bench. The writ appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed B 
by a Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal by special 
leave. 
The leave granted in this appeal is confined only to the question: 
whether the dismissal will take effect from the date of the order of the C 
Labour Court, namely, December 11, 1985 or it would relate to the date 
of the order of dismissal passed by the employer, namely, November 18, 
198!. 
The only point involved for decision is apparently concluded 
by the decision of the Constitution Bench in P.H. Kalyani v. Mis Air D 
France, Calcutta, [1964] 2 SCR I 04. However, th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.