SHANKAR CHAKRAVARTI versus BRITANNIA BISCUIT CO. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1165 · Decided: 04-05-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• • 
SFiANKAR cHAKRA.v An.TI 
v. 
BRITANNIA BISCUIT CO. LTD. & ANR. 
May 4, 1979 
[V. R. KRrsHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ] 
1165 
I11dus1rial Disputes Act, 1947, Sectio11 33(2)(b)-Whether the IndUJtrial 
" 
j 
T;ibunal, not deciding the validity of the enquiry aga. inst a workman but' a.dju .. 
,,._ -~ dicating preliminary issue that the enquiry was in accordance with the princi-
- pies of natural justice, should necesSarily given an opportunity to the employer 
to adduce further evidence as to Charges, irrespective of the fact whether such 
o'pportunity was sought. 
In the ex parte departmental enqu.iry c6nducted against the appell~t who 
was under detention under th'e Prevention of Violence Act, 1970 the Enquiry 
officer held the alleged charges proved a·nd on the report .of the enquiry 
Officer, the management of th'e Ist respondent comp3.ny. terminated the services 
of the appellant and gave one month's wage in lieu of notice. Since an indus-
trial dispute was then· pending before the. Tribunal, an application was made 
unc!er section 33 (2 )(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval 
of the Industrial Tribunal to the action of the management terminatiitg the 
services of the appellant. 
On a notice issued by the Tribunal to the appellant 
in the Jail, h:e submitted bis written statement. 
The Tribunal was of the 
opinion that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural 
~tice and hence vitiated. 
Accordingly by its AWaird dated 15th September 
1973, the Tribunal rejected the application for approval of the action terminat-
ing service of the appellant made by the Company. 
The Writ Petition preferred by the Company a.gainst the said Award was 
dismissed and the decision of the Tribunal was upheld. 
In the Letters Patent Appeal No. 80j74, preferred by the Company, a 
Division Bench of !he Calcutta High Court held that after the Industrial Tri-
bunal . adjudicated upon the pr'eliminary issue whether the enquiry was in 
aocofdance with 'the principles of natural ju9tice and having held against the 
company it was incumbent upon the Industrial Tribunal to give an opportunity 
to the employer to lead evidence to . prove the charg'cs alleged against the 
workm3o ·and as the issue about the validity of the enquiry was not decided 
as a preliminary issue and as ther'eafter no opportunity was given to tho 
employer it would be necessary to remand the matter to the Industrial Tribunal 
fur giving an opportunity to the employer for further evidence, if so advis'cd, 
and then finally dispose of the application made by the employer under section 
33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
HELD : 1. Both on precedent and on principle, it is undeniable that there 
is no duty cast on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court while adjudicat-
ing Upon a penal termination or" service of a workman either under Section 10 
c 
D 
E 
G 
B 
c 
D 
r 
IG 
B 
1166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1979] 3 S.C.R, 
or under Section 33 to call upon the employer to adduce additional evidence 
to substantiate the charge of misconduct by giving some specific opportunity 
after decision on the preliminary is.we whether the domestic enquiry was at 
all held, or if held, was defective in favour of the workman. Cooper Engi· 
neering Ltd. case is not an authority for the proposition that every case coming 
before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 or Section 33 
of the Act complaining about th'e punitive termination of service following a 
• 
( 
domestic enquiry that the Coun or Tribunal as a matter of law must frame 
a preliminary issue and proceed to decide the validity or otherwise of the 
enquiry and then serve a ftesh notice on the employer to 
adduce further 
evidente to sustain tho charges if it so chooses to do. Cooper Ettginetri1t1 Ltd. 
ca>e [1976] 1 SCR 361 merely speeifieo the stage at which such an oppor!llDity 
\ 
v 
is to b'e given, if sought. It is both the right and obligation of the employer, ,.>---'"" 
if it so cboos'es to adduce additional evidence to substantiate the charses of 
.misconduct. It is f'or the employer to avail of such opportunity by a specific 
pleading or by a specific request. 
If such an opportunity is sought in the 
oour.ie of proceeding, th'c Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, a~ the case 
may be, should grant the opportunity to lead additional evidence to substantiate 
the charges. 

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