LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus RAMESH KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 862 i A STATE OF HARYANA v. RAMESH KUMAR · (Civil Appeal No. 4325 of 2008) B JULY 11, 2008 )""- < [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947'- Termination order- Claim bf workman that he completed 240 days of service.:.._ Award by c Labour Court that termination order illegal :.... Challenge to - Summary dismissal ·of writ petition by High Court - Sustainability of - Held:· High Court should have given a rea- saned order indicative of its application of mind - Absence of reasons rendered the order unsustainable - More so, onus D wa~ on workman to prove that he' worked continuously for 240 ,.. "'"""'" days in the year preceding his termination and also 'had to f- adduce evidence for the same - Thus, order of High Court set f aside - Matter remitted to High Court· for fresh consideration - Judgment/Order - Reasoned order - Requirement of E The. res.pond.ent was engaged in the Public ··Works Department in December 1991. He continued to work upto 31.3.1993. Thereafter, he was terminated from service~ The Lab9~r Court passed an award that the termination was not sustainable since the ·respondent tiad completed 240 ,, days of service in- fhe year preceding his termination. Ap- ,~ , ... F . , peila.nt-State challenged the award. High Court dismissed the writ petition summarily. Hence the present appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court G ·HELD: 1.1-. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to I ~ have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order ~ indicative of an application of its mind, alf the more when '- ' its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The H 862 ~ \: STATE OF HARYANA v. RAMESH KUMAR 863 absence of reasons rendered the order of High Court not A sustainable. [Para 6] [865-G, 866-A] State of UP v. Battan and Ors 2001 (10) SCC 607; State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR 1982 SC 1215; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. 1987 (2) SCC 222 - relied on. B 1.2 Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the· controversy in question and the de- cision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute sub- jectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording rea- c sons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually im- possible for the Courts to perform their appellate func- tion or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging ..... ~ the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indis- 0 pensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least . sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter , before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out ' reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking E out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily in- ' congruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [Para 7f [866-D,E,FG] • _..;, State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh 2004(1) SCC 547; Suga , F Ram @ Chhuga Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2006 (8) sec 641 - relied on. Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 LCR 120 - referred to. G 1.3 Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pret~.d by any authority or Court, be it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, H 864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 10 S.C.R. " A 1950. [Para 6] [866-B,C] 2.1 The principle that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrench- 8 ment and it is for the ·workman to adduce evidence apart 'y ... from examining himself to prove the factum of his being in employment of the employer. [Para 11] [867-G] Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. 1981 (3) SCC 225; Range Forest Officer v. S. T Hadimani 2002 (3) SCC 25; c Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 2004 (8) SCC 161; Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas 2004 (8).SCC 195; M.P Electricity Board v. Hariram 2004 (8) sec 246; Surendrangar District Panchayat and Anr. VS. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (8) SCC 450 - rel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.