RAGHUBIR SINGH versus GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS, HISSAR

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 1100 · Decided: 03-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 1100 
RAGHUBIR SINGH 
v. 
GENERAL MANAGER, HARYANA ROADWAYS, HISSAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 8434 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
s. 10(1 ), 11 A - Termination of service - Misappropriation 
of ticket amount by conductor-workman - Order of termination 
-
Criminal case resulting in acquittal -
Subsequently, 
employee reporting to join for duty but informed that his 
0 services were terminated -
Industrial dispute before 
Conciliation Officer but the same failed - Reference of dispute 
to labour court by State Government, as regards termination 
order - Labour court passing award against employee that 
reference of industrial dispute as time barred - In writ petition, 
E award not interfered with by the High Court- On appeal, held: 
Even assuming that there was delay and /aches on the part 
of the workman in raising the industrial dispute and getting 
the same'"referenced for adjudication, rejection of the 
reference by the labour court by answering the additional 
issue regarding the delay /aches and limitation without 
F adjudicating the points of dispute referred to it on the merits, 
amounts to failure to exercise its statutory power uls. 11 A - . 
Furthermore, workman continuously remained absent from 
his duties, however, termination order was passed without 
conducting an enquiry as required in law - Also no show 
G cause notice issued to the workman - Conductor being a 
workman as defined uls. 2(s) is an employee of the respondent 
authorities and was governed by the Industrial Employment 
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 but the disciplinary proceedings 
were initiated u/r. 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment 
H 
1100 
RAGHUBIR SINGH v. GENERAL MANAGER, 
1101 
HARYANA ROADWAYS, HISSAR 
and Appeal) Rules, 1987 - Thus, the principles of natural 
A 
justice were not followed - Out of the period of unauthorised 
absence of around five months, conductor was under judicial 
custody for two months due to the criminal case filed against 
him at the instance of the respondent - In view thereof and 
facts of the case, the unauthorised absence period treated as 
B 
leave without wages - Order of termination passed by the 
employer, the award passed by the labour court and the 
judgment of the High Court set aside - Employee to be 
reinstated, with back wages and other consequential benefits 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 311(2)(b). 
c 
s. 10(1) - Power under - Reference of industrial dispute 
by the State Government to the labour court for adjudication 
- Held: As per s. 10(1), the appropriate government 'at any 
time' may refer an industrial dispute for adjudication, if it is of 
the opinion that such an industrial dispute between the 
D 
workman and the employer exists or is apprehended - On 
facts, no doubt there was a delay in raising the dispute by the 
conductor; the labour court nevertheless has the power to 
mould the relief accordingly·- Reference of the industrial 
dispute by the State Government to the labour court to 
E 
adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties 
was made within a reasonable time, considering the 
circumstances in which the workman was placed. 
Doctrines/Principles - 'Doctrine of Proportionality' -
Principle of - Held: Is to ensure that the action of the employer 
against employees/workmen does not impinge their 
fundamental and statutory rights - The Doctrine is to be 
followed by the employer/employers at the time of taking 
disciplinary action against their employees/workmen to satisfy 
G 
the principles of natural justice and safeguard the rights of 
employees/workmen - On facts, doctrine to be applie.:J to the 
facts of the case - Order of termination disproportionate to the 
gravity of misconduct, thus, employee entitled to 
reinstatement, back wages and other benefits. 
F 
H 
1102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 8 S.C.R. 
A 
The 
appellant-conductor was 
arrested 
for 
misappropriating the amount collected from tickets. A 
criminal case was registered and the appellant was 
arrested. Thereafter, services of the appellant were 
terminated. The appellant then was released on bail with 
B an oral assurance that he would be reinstated after his 
acquittal by the court. Thereafter, the appellant was 
acquitted but when he reported to join his duty, he was 
informed that his services were terminated. The appellant 
then served a demand notice upon the respond

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