S.S. SHETTY versus BHARAT NIDHI, LTD.

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 17-09-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

442 
SUPREME ,COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
1957 
No.12, the bed-sheet, in which the appella11t wrapped 
s11brama11ia 
himself after the offence. All that the document states 
Gozmdan 
is that among other items it is also stained with human-
The s~~te of blood, but Mr. Umrigar argues that this description 
Madras 
only shows that there would have been only a speck 
Govinda Meuo11 1. or a spot of blood on the bed sheet, for according to 
him, as a matter of fact, there should have been a 
large quantity of blood on the hands of the appellant 
if he had, without washing, used a bed-sheet, there-
after large patches of blood are likely to be present on 
the bed-sheet. If that is so, the mere fact that the 
presence of blood is described as stains would show that 
the prosecution case cannot be true. We do not feel 
inclined to put such a restricted meaning on the word 
'stain'. 'Stained with human blood' is an expression 
commonly found in Chemical Examiner's reports and 
it does not necessarily refer to specks of blood alone. 
We do not thirtk that any inference can be drawn 
from the use of the word 'stain' 
in the the Chemical 
Examiner's report, that there was not sufficient blood 
on the bed-sheet. The appellant has given no explana-
tion as to how blood came to be present on material 
objects Nos. 10 to 12. Agreeing with the High Court 
that this is corroboration of the confession made by the 
appellant, we are of the opinion that the confession 
can be acted upon. If that is so, the appellant's guilt 
has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
1957 
Septe1nber 17. 
The appeal is dismissed. 
S.S. SHETTY 
v. 
Appeal dismissed. 
BHARAT NIDHI, LTD. 
(BHAGWATI, S K. DAS and GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.) 
Industrial 
dispute-Wrongful dismissal-Tribunal 
directing 
reinstatement-Failure to implement award-Benefit of reinstate-
ment-Monetary 
value-Computation-Code of Civil Procedure 
(Act V of 1908), s. 95-Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) 
Act, 1950 (XLVIII of 1950), s. 20(1), (2). 
The appellant Wll.$ in the service of the respondent but sub-
sequently he was discharged on the plea that he had become surplus 
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
443 
to the requirement of the respondent. The Industrial Tribunal 
found that the respondent had been guilty of. unfair labour 
practice and victimisation and held that the order of discharge 
was illegal and that he should be reinstated, with arrears of salary 
and allowances from the date of discharge. The respondent having 
failed to implement the award, the appellant filed an application 
under section 20(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) 
Act, 1950, for computation of the money value of the benefit of 
reinstatement. The Industrial Tribunal assessed the value of 
reinstatement at the sum of Rs. 1,000 by adopting the measure of 
damages as laid down under section 95 of the Code of Civil Pro-
cedure. Under the 
bye-laws 
framed by the 
respondent, the 
services of an employee could be terminated on 
giving one 
month's notice. 
Held, that the monetary value of the benefit of reinstatement 
is to be computed not on the basis of a breach of the contract of 
employment nor on the basis of a tort alleged to have been com-
mitted by the employer by reason of the non-implementation 
of the 
direction for reinstatement contained in the award. The 
computation has to be made by the Industrial Tribunal having 
regard to all the circumstances of the case, such as, the terms aJld 
conditions of employment, the tenure of service, the possibility of 
termination of the employment at the instance of either party, 
the possibility of retrenchment hy the employer or resignation 
or 
retirement by the employee and even of the employer himself 
ceasing to exist, or of the employee being awarded various bene-
fits including reinstatement under the terms of future awards by 
Industrial Tribunals in the event of industrial disputes arising 
between the partie> in the future. 
The observations of Greer L. J. in Salt v. Power Plant Co., 
Ltd. (1936) 3 All E.R. 322, 325, relied on. 
In the instant case, 
having regard to the bye-laws, the 
appellant would have been entitled to only one rno11th's salary in 
lieu of notice, as and by way of compensation for non implementa-
tion of the direction for reinstatement, but this right could not 
be availed of by the respondent in view of the finding 
of the 
Tribunal that he was guilty of unfair labour practice and victimi-
sation, and a correct estimate 

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