THE DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS LTD. versus KUSHAL BHAN

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 10-03-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
... 
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
227 
cancel. the decree in regard to the properties covered 
x960 
by the certificate. Section 10 provides, inter alia, " 11 
d 
h 
h 
. 
h 11 
h 
C JI 
h 
b 
, e appagou a 
t at w en it s a 
appear to t e 
o ector t at y ShankargoudaPatil 
virtue of, or in execution of, a decree or order of any 
v. 
court any watan or any part thereof, or any of the 
Basangouda 
· 
profits thereof, recorded as such in the revenue records Shiddangouda Patil 
or registered under this Act, and assigned under s. 23 G . 
-
as remuneration of an officiator has or have, after the aJendragadkar f . 
. date of this Act coming into force, passed or may pass 
without the sanction of the State Government into 
the ownership or beneficial possession of any person 
other than the officiator for the time being, the court 
shall, on receipt of a certificate under the hand and 
seal of the Collector, stating the particulars mentioned 
in the section, cancel the decree or order complained 
of so far as it concerns the said watan or any part 
thereof. The only objection against the validity of 
the certificate is that it has been addressed to a wrong 
court. Since we have overruled that objection it 
follows that that portion of the decree which concerns 
the watan properties must be cancelled. 
In the result the petition is allowed and the decree 
in question in so far as it purports to operate on or 
include any right to the office of Patilki and watan 
lands attached thereto at Kirtgeri as enumerated in 
the certificate is cancelled. Under the circumstances 
of this case there will be no order as to costs. 
Petition allowed. 
THE DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL 
MILLS LTD. 
v. 
KUSHAL BHAN 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Industrial, Dispute-Dismissal of employees by enquiry com-
mittee pending trial in Criminal Court-Subsequent acquittal of the 
employee-Jurisdiction of Tribunal, to refuse approval of dismissal-
Industrial Disputes Act, r947 (XIV of r947), s. 33(2), proviso. 
The appellant company served a charge-sheet on the res-
pondent who was one of its employees alleging that he had stolen 
the cycle of the company's Head Clerk, A criminal case relating 
March xo. 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
r960 
to the theft was pending against him then. He was asked to 
sho\v cause \vhy he should not be dismissed for misconduct, and 
Delhi Cloth & 
as his explanation was unsatisfactory a certain date \Vas fixed for 
General Mills Led. enquiry. The respondent appeared before the enquiry committee 
v. 
but refused to participate in the enquiry by answering questions 
Kushal Bhan 
put to him as he did not want to produce any defence till the 
matter was decided by the Court. The company, however, after 
completing the enquiry directed the dismissal of the respondent 
on the ground that misconduct had been proved against him. 
The company thereafter made an application under s. 33(2) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal for approval 
of the disciplinary action taken against the respondent. 
In the 
meantime the respondent was acquitted by the Criminal Court. 
The judgment of the Criminal Court was produced before the 
tribunal which refused to approve the order of dismissal of the 
respondent. On appeal by the company by special leave : 
Held, that the principles of natural justice do not require 
that an employer must wait for the decision of the Criminal Trial 
Court before taking disciplinary action against an employee. 
Shri Bi1nal Kanta Mukherjee v. Messrs. N ewsrrian' s Printing 
Works, (r956) L.A.C. r88, approved. 
If a case is of a grave nature involving questions of fact and 
law which are not simple it would be advisable for the employer 
to await the decision of the Criminal Trial Court but in a simple 
case like the present the tribunal erred in not granting approval 
under s. 33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 88 of 1959. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated May 6, 1958, of the Industrial Tribunal, 
Delhi, in 0. P. No. 54 of 1958. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, S. N. 
Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and 
P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. 
Janardan Sharma, for the respondent. 
1960. March 10. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Wanchoo J. 
W ANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave in 
an industrial matter. The appellant is a company 
carrying on the manufacture 

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