RAJINDER KUMAR KINDRA versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH SECRETARY (LABOUR) AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 866 · Decided: 27-09-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
~66 
RAJ!NDER KUMAR KINDRA 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH 
SECRETARY (LABOUR) AND ORS. 
September 27, 1984 
(D. A. DESAI AND D,P. MADON, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 11-A-Arbitrator and Court 
ca!J reappraise evidence led in domestic enquiry to satisfy whether misconduct 
against work1nan Is t!stablishtd. 
Arbitrator and the Court can reject evidence of 
111isconduct based on no legal evidence. 
Constitution of' India-Article 136-Supreme C'ourt can reject findings 
of misconduct based on no legal evidence. 
Words and Phrases-Misconduct-Whether keeping one's own cheque-
book unattended a1nounts to misconduct on the part oft Ire e111ployee. 
Gainful employment-What is-Jn the absence of employment staying 
E 
with and helping one's father-in-law in Ids wor.'c ;snot gainful e1nploy111ent. 
F 
G 
H 
The appcllaot was working as a salesman at a show room or a com· 
pany. The company charge-sheeted the appellant Inter a/ia on the ground or 
misconduct. The misconduct imputed to the appellant was that he was 
negligent in keeping his cheque-book in relation to his own private account 
in such a manner that it enabled the Manager-cum-Cashier of the show roorn 
or the company in which the appellant was a salesman at the relevant time 
to misuse the cheque forms and thereby derraud the company. An Inquiry 
Officerwas appointed to enquire into the charges. T~c 1;ompany examined son1e 
witbesses and adduced evidence. 
The Inquiry Officer found the appellant 
guilty of all the charges. 
On the basis of the findiogs of the Inquiry Officer 
the con1pany dismissed the appellant from service. 
The appellant raised an 
industrial dispute and the same was, by agreement, referred by the appro-
priate Government to an arbitrator as provided under Sec. 
lO(A)(l) of the 
Industrial 'Disputes Act, 1947. The company submitted that the arbitrator 
cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the inquiry. In his award, the 
arbitrator held that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were based on no 
legal evidence and were, t hereforc, perverse and the enquiry was therefore 
vitiated. Before a formal final order could be made by the arbitrator, he 
was elevated as a Judge of the Delhi High Court. 
That led to a second 
reference. The second arbitrator found the appellant guilty of all the 
charges and held that the dismissal of the appellant was not wrongful. The 
appellant filed a wr.it petition under Art. 226 in the High Court question· 
_, 
&. K. KINDRA v. DGLHi ADMN. 
867 
iog the correctness, validity and the legality of the award of the second 
arbitrator. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the matter in 
limine observing that the matter depends upon assessment of evidence and 
the Court cannot reappraise the same under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 
Hence this appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : The charge levelled against the appellant is a composite 
charge and has two limbs. The first limb of the charge refers to negligence 
io handling his private cheque-book so that in conspiracy with the Manager 
cheque forms contained in the cheque-book issued to the appellant for 
operating bis private account were used by the Manager to defraud the com-
pany. When a chequc-bo.ok is issued to a holder of an account by the bank, 
there is no law which requires him to keep his cheque-book in safe custody. 
He may keep his cheque book anywhere he likes and even if it is not in safe 
custody he does so at his own peril. 
Some one so minded to forge cheque 
and to withdraw money from some on_•s account may use aoybol)y's 
chequewbook. 
In such a situation, the owner of the cheque-book unless be 
has participated in the c:,nspiracy in any manner for facilitating withdrawal 
of the amount cannot be attributed any 1nisconduct for keeping his cheque-
book unatte:lded or not in safe custody. Therefore first limb of the charge 
can be rejected as per se untenable without anything more. The second limb 
of the charge that since the appellant left his chequewbook unattended the 
appellant was negligent and .guilty of wilful disobedience in performance of 
his duties as a salesman, has no force. 
Keeping one's own cheque-book 
unattended is no part of performance of duties of the employees and there 
was no order by the employer 'how appellant should handle his private 
chc:·que-book. 
Therefore, t\-.e charge apart from being frivoluus is ludicrous 
and could not have been even framed. Even if the allegatio

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