LexSHYAM LAL SHARMA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ' SHY AM LAL SHARMA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA NOVEMBER 8/26, 1985 B [P.N. BHAGWATI, C.J., V.D TULZAPURKAR, R.S. PATHAK, D.P. MADON AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 310(1) & 311(2)(b)-Power exercisable by President/Governor-Not on personal satisfaction but with the aid and advice of Council of Ministers-Workers have a right to C struggle and strive for econofflic justice-Constitution makers did not • design provisions for breaking a worker's strike. The petitioners, who were Railway employees, were either dismis- sed or removed from service without holding any enquiry for striking D work, paralysing railway services, assualting and intimidating loyal workers and superior officers, etc. The writ petitions filed in the High Courts challenging the orders of dismissal or removal stood transferred to this Court, heard along with other writ petitions and civil appeals and hy judgment dated I !th July, 198S dismissed. E The petitioners sought review of the said judgment alleging that during the course of arguments, parties had proceeded on the assump- tion that the Court would decide only the seven questions framed hy the then Hon'hle the Chief Justice, and the individual petitions on merits would be dealt with either hy the Division Benches of this Court or by the respective High Courts, that the parties addressed their arguments p and submissions only on those general questions, that written submis- sions were made only in transfer case No. SS of 1982 among,'it all the railway matters, that none of the petitioners had been given any opportunity to argue their cases on merits, that the judgment under review dismissed all the transferred cases and thus all these petitions stand decided on merits also, that this has caused serious prejudice to G their cases and, therefore, in the interest of justice, another opportu- nity should be given to argue the petitions on merits. Dismissing the Review Petitions, HELD: Per P.N. Bhagwati, C.J., V.D. Tu/zapurkar, R.S. H Pathak and D.P. Madon, JJ. 898 +· -"'(- ' ., + S.L SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA 899 The Review Petitions are dismissed as there is no substance in the grounds urged. Pe; M. P. Thakkar, J. dissenting. I. There is good ground to entertain the Review Petitions and A issue notice to the other side for hearing. [904E] - B 2. There is substance in the grounds because no notices have been issued on the Review Petitions and the averments have not been con- troverted by the other side. In the majority judgment also it has not been stated that the averments are factually untnie. [9010-E] 3. That the matter of Narpat Singh was not argfied on its indi- vidual merits is correct. Unless the factual averments made in Para 9 of the Review Petition are shown to be untrue, these may be considered adequate to vitiate the impugned order on the ground that it manifests non-application of mind and is built on 'no evidence'. [902C] -4. In the majority judgment the proposition· of law has been enunciated that the pleasure under Article 310( I) can be exercised even by an authority specified in the Act or rules made under the proviso to Article 309. [9020-E] c D S. The power under Article 310(1) is exercisable even by the E President or Governor, not on his personal satisfaction, but with the aid and on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Can the same power be exercised by a Divisional Mechanical Engineer or any other lower func- tionary acting on his own, there being no question of his acting with the aid or advice of the Council of Ministers? Can the D.M.E. who does not even act in the name of the President, surrogate for the President? It is p certainly an important Constitutional issue which requires to be examined, but has not been examined from this perspective though the point was debater. [9038-D I 6. Will it not tantamount to speaking in two voices to hold that principles of Natural Justice need not be complied with even in regard G to the quantum of punishment to be inflicted on a workman, even though the law declared so far demands that even a black marketeer cannot be black-listed without observing the principles of Natural Justice? Is a workman who 'sweats' for the Nation not entitled to the same treatment as a black-marketeer, who 'bleeds' the Nation? [9030-E] H 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R. A 7. The workers certainly have a right to struggle and strive for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.