RAJENDRA JHA versus PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, BOKARO STEEL CITY, DISTRICT DHANBAD AND ANR.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 21-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ff 
544 
RAJENDRA JHA 
v. 
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, BOKARO 
STEEL CITY, DISTRICT DHANBAD AND ANR. 
[Y. V. 
August 21, 1984 
CHANDRACHUD, C.J., A. VARADARAJAN AND 
A.N. SEN JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950, Article 136-Appeal by special /eave~· 
Questi'on of law Qnd question of fact-When can be raised. 
Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Section 33(2) (b). 
Dismissal of empl•yee-Employer seeking approval-Opportunity to 
adduce evidence-Whether to be gi'ven to employer. 
Code of Civil Precedure 1908-Section 11. 
Res judicata-Application of in labour disputes-Erroneolls decision on 
question of /a.v-Whether deciJ/On operates as res }udicata between same parties. 
The appellant was employed in a public sector undertaking. 
He was 
dismissed on 
charge~ of n1isconduct 
consisting of absence from duty, 
falsification of entries in the registers, destruction of records t.tc. 
Since an 
industrial dispute was pending before the Labour Court between the 
Management and its workmen an application was filed by the management 
under section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking 
approval of the Labour Court to lhe order of dismissal passed against the 
appellant. 
The decision of the application was partly in favour of the 
appellant and partly against him, 
The Labour Court held : (1) that the 
domestic inquiry was invalid because t}1e Chief Medical Officer was neither 
competent to issue the charge-sheet nor to constitute the Enquiry Com~ 
mittee which held the appellant guilty of the 
charg~s fra1ned against him, 
and (2) that the management 
~hould be given an opportunity to adduce 
evidence to justify the order of dismissal. 
The appellant filed a . writ petition against the latter part of the 
Court's order contending that the management should not be allowed to 
lead evidence to justify the order of dismissal. 
The management on the 
other hand filed a writ petition against the former part of the order of the 
Labour Court by which it held that the enquiry was vitiated. 
The High 
_Court disrpissed bi?th tl)e writ petition,~. 
' 
•
• 
r• 
... 
• 
• 
' 
• 
• 
RAJENDRA JHA v. LABOUR COURT 
545 
The management filed an appeal in ,this Court complaining of the 
finding of the High Court that it was not competent for the Chief Medical 
Officer to charge-sheet the appellant or to constitute the Enquiry Committee. 
The appeal was, however, dismissed and the finding of the Labour Court 
and the High Court that the enquiry which resulted in the dismissal of the 
appellant was vitiated, was upheld. 
.A 
After the disposal of the above appeal, the Labour Court resumed 
B 
hearing of the matter and alJowed the managen1cnt to lead evidence in order 
to justify the order of dismissal. 
The appellant filed an ;application object-
ing to the management leading evidence but that application was dismissed. 
The writ 
petition filed by the appellant in tho High Court was also 
dismissed. 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appel-
lant-workman that the employer did not ask for an opportunity to lead 
evidence to justify the order of dismissal and that the Labour Court gave 
that opportunity on its own accord and that it was open to him to argue 
even at this stage that the Labour Court ought not to ha vc passed the 
particular order. 
Dismissing the Appea1J 
HELD : !. (i) In a proceeding under section 33(2) (b) of tho Indus-
trial Disputes Act 1947 it is open to the employer to lead evidence to 
justify the order passed against the employee. [548E] 
(ii) In passing the order allowing the employers to lead evidence, 
the Labour Court cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiCtion. [S53E] 
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, [1972] 3 S.C.R. 
29 and Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. [1979] 3 S C.R. 
116 5, referred to. 
In the· instant case, the employers who are respondent No. 2 filed an 
application under section 33(2) (b) of the Act, asking for the approval 
of the Labour Court to the order of dismissal which was passed against 
the appellant. 
By that application, they did not ask alternatively for 
.ln opportunity to lead evidence to justify the order of dismissaL 
The 
tenor of the judgment of the Labour Court shows that, in all probability, 
an oral request for permission to adduce 
evidence was 
made by tho 
employers to the Labour Court when the bearing of the said 
application 
was coming to a close. 
The contention of the appella

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