THE PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT SERVICE versus STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 21-08-1962 · 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)

Bril•rh lndi.J 
Oorptwation Ltl. 
v. 
CQ/leelo,. of Ctntt•l 
ixci•• 
• 
1962 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] 
In our judgment the Schedule which is characterised 
as discriminative is based upon a reasonable classi-
fication and is validly enacted. If the law is held 
to be valid the attack under Arts. 19 and 31 must 
also fail. 
In view of what we have sairl above the peti-
tion must fail. 
It will be dismissed with costs. 
Petition dismissed . 
THE PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT SERVICE 
v. 
STATE INDUS:l'RIAL COURT 
(P. B. GAJl!INDRAGADKAR and K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute- Dismissal of employee -Finding 
that no enquiry held by employer before dismissing -
Finding 
per~erse -
Appeal Court confi1ming finding -
Writ Pelition 
before 
High Court -
Interference by High Court -
C. P. & 
Berar Industrial 
Disputes Settlement Act, 1~47(C. P. 23 of 
1947), •. 16. 
The appellant employed K as a temporary motor dri-
ver on the express condition that until such time as he was 
confirmed his services were liable to be terminated without 
notice or compensation and without assigning any reason. 
Sometime afterwards, the appellant served a charge sheet 
upon K and aftet holding an enquiry dismissed him. 
K 
made an application before the Labour Commissioner under 
s. 16 C. P. & Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, 
praying for reinstatement alleging that 
the dismissal was 
illegal as it was not preceded by an enquiry. The Labour 
Commissioner was doubtful whether any enquiry,·was held 
·by the appellant but on the basis of evidence adduced before 
him he held the charges proved and accordingly dismissed 
the application. On appeal, the Industrial Court held that 
the Labour Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hold the en~ 
quiry and mad~ an order directin9 reinstatement of Kwit!\ 
.. 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
6.51 
back wages. 
Thereupon, the appellant filed a writ petition 
before the High Court for quashing the order of the Indus-
trial Court but the High Court dismissed the application. 
The appellant contended (i) that in view of the terms of em-
ployment the appellant co11ld dismiss K ·without holding an 
enquiry, (ii) that the Labour Commissioner had jurisdiction to 
hold the equiry and. (iii) that the finding of the Labour 
Commissioner that no enquiry had been held by the appel-
lant was perverse and the High Court should have intervened, 
Hela, 
that the finding that no enquiry had been held 
by the appellant before dismissing K was perverse and the 
appellanf was entitled to a writ quashing the order of the 
Industrial Court and restoring that of the Labour Commis-
sioner. The appellant had produced 
before the Labour 
Commissioner the evidence recorded at the enquiry which 
consisted of the statement of K himself signed by him and 
. the statements of two conductors. The explanation of K 
that lie had been made to. sign on a blank paper was unaccep-
table. The finding of the Labour Commissioner amounted 
to a clear error of law, the industrial Court erred in thinking 
that it was bound by this finding and this error on its part 
was so apparent on the face of the record that it was proper 
and reasonable for the Righ Court to correct the error. 
Semble, 
Inspite of the terms of employment the appel-
lant could not dismiss K without holding an enquiry and 
that even if the appellant had failed to hold the enquiry it 
was open to the Labour Commissioner to hold one. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRisDIOTION: · Civil Appeal 
No. 504 of 1961. 
Appeal 9y special leave from the judgment 
and order dated October l 7, I959, of the Bombay 
High Court at Nagpur in Special Civil Application 
No. 5.9 of 1959. 
M. O. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, 
E. J. Mohrir, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. O. Mathur and 
Ravinder Narain, for the appellant, 
B. A. Masodkar, Bishambar Lal and Ganpa/, 
.Rai1 for the res:pondent :No. 3, 
lfJ/lS 
Pr,.inci•l 
Transport Serrice 
v. 
Stat1 lndvstri,l 
Court 
1912 
, Pro•ln&ial 
Traneprwt Seroic• 
; 
'f. 
S tit• lttda1Wisi 
i 
Gour I 
Das Oupla J, · 
85~ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) 
1962. August 21. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
DAS GUPTA, J.-This appeal by special leave 
is against an order of the High Court of Bombay 
at Nagpur rejeoting an applioation made by this ap-
pellant under Arts. 226 and 2~7 of the Constitution 
for quaghin~ an order made by the State Industrial 
Court, Nagpur, in the matt.er of dismiBBal by the ap· 
pellant of jte employee, Kundlik Tulsiram Bhosl

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