STATE OF PUNJAB versus JAGIR SINGH

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 734 · Decided: 27-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
JAGIR SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B . .SINHA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Section 2 5-F-Retrenchment-Retrenchment compensation-Entitlement 
to--Termination of services of workman-Due to misconduct-Held: If the 
services of a workman were terminated due to misconduct, the question of 
payment of any retrenchment compensation or service of any statutory notice 
would not arise-The question of compliance with the provisions of S. 25-
D 
F would arise if the services of a workman were terminated on a ground other 
than misconduct. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Termination of services-Natural justice-Principles-Applicability of-
Held: When a discretion is conferred upon the employer to terminate or not 
to terminate the services of an employee, the principles of natural justice are 
ordinarily required to be compiled with-The said principles are applicable 
even if the services are terminated in terms of proviso to Art. 309-But the 
said principle cannot be put in a straitjacket formula-It cannot be applied 
in a vacuum without reference to the relevant fact situation-Constitution of 
India, 1950, Art. 309. 
Termination of services-Back wages-Entitlement to--Workman 
remained absent from duty-Despite having been asked to rejoin duty he did 
not do so--Ho_wever, the Labour Court and High Court directed reinstatement 
of the workman with back wages-Correctness of-Held: While directing 
grant of back wages, the Labour Court was required to consider the totality 
of the circumstances-The conduct of the workman had also an important 
role to play-Even, if it was obligatory to comply with Rr. 5 and 8 of the 
1970 Rules, the workman, having regard to the totality of the situation, was 
not entitled to back wages-Hence, Labour Court and High Court committed 
a manifest error in granting back wages in favour of the workman-Service 
Law-Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970, Rr. 5 
734 
STATE v. JAGIR SINGH 
735 
and 8-Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1953, R, 3.25. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Retrenchment"-Meaning of-Jn the context of Section 25-F of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
The respondent-workman absented himself from duty for about 3 
months. The respondent did not apply for any grant of leave. He was 
asked to report for duty by a registered letter but despite the same he 
did not comply with the said request. As regard his absence from duty, 
a notice was published in the newspapers but despite the same he did 
not join his duties within the time specified therein. The appellant-State, 
therefore, on the ground of his being absent from duty, terminated his 
services. Questioning the legality of the said order, a purported demand 
was raised by the respondent to reinstate him in service. The respondent 
was not reinstated in service and the appellant-State raised an industrial 
dispute under Section lO(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
The Labour Court set aside the order of termination on the ground 
that the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Act were not 
complied with and directed the appellant-State to reinstate the 
respondent-workman with continuity in service and full back wages. 
However, the High Court held that the respondent was entitled only to 
60% of the back wages while upholding the direction for reinstatement 
of the respondent. Hence the appeals. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that the order of 
termination was rightly set aside by the Labour Court as no disciplinary 
proceedings were initiated against the respondent under Rules 5 and 8 
of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970 and 
Rule 3.25 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1953. 
The following question arose before the Court: 
Whether the workman was entitled to back wages? 
Allowing the appeal of the State and dismissing the appeal of the 
workman, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : 1.1. The findings of the Labour court that the mandatory H 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were 
not complied with are inconsistent and self-contradictory. If the services 
of a workman were terminated for misconduct, the question of payment 
of any retrenchment compensation or service of any statutory notice 
would not arise. The question of compliance with the provisions of Section 
B 
25-F of the Act would arise, if the services of the conc

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