THE UNITED PLANTERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN INDIA versus KG. SANGAMESWARAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 06-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE UNITED PLANTERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN INDIA 
v. 
KG. SANGAMESWARAN AND ANR. 
MARCH 6, 1997 
B 
(S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Labour Law 
Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947-Sec. 41(1) & 
C (2)-Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Rules, 1948-Sec. 9(3)-In-
dustrial Disputes Act 1947-llA-Dismissal-On appeal-Appellate 
Authority set aside dismissal order-Evidence at the appellate stage not 
allowed-Held, Appellate authority has jurisdiction to take evidence to come 
to its own conclusion-Grave en-or committed in not allowing employee to 
lead evidence---Order of appellate authority set aside. 
D 
E 
F 
The respondent, employed with the appellant, was dismissed fr,om · 
service for serious misconduct. The order of dismissal was chalknged by 
the respondent before the Appellate authority under sec. 41(2) of the1'amil 
Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The appeal was allowed and his 
dismissal was set aside on the ground that no enquiry was held. Applica-
tion of the appellant to lead evidence was not allowed. Hence the presen(" 
appeal. 
< 
The contention of the appellant was that the appellate authority 
should have allowed them to lead ~l!.lence as it had jurisdiction and power 
to record evidence at the appellate stage. It was further contended that the 
order by which the services of the respondent were brought to an end was ' 
not an order of dismissal and therefore there was no requirement to hold 
a domestic enquiry. 
The contention of the respondent was that if an opportunity of 
G hearing was not given at the initial stage during the domestic enquiry, the 
defect could not be cured by giving opportunity at the appellate stage. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The order of dismissal, ex-facie is punitive in nature as 
H the respondent has been held guilty of misconduct including misap· 
756 
·~. 
-
-
UNITED PLANTERS ASSN. OF SOUTHERN INDIA v. KG. SANGAMESWARAN 
757 
propriation. The order is not an innocuous order and cannot be treated A 
as an order by which services of the respondent were simply terminated. 
He was in fact dismissed from service. [761-D] 
2. Section UA of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was introduced by 
Parliament, wherein it was provided that the Tribunal had not only the B 
power to set aside the order of dismissal and direct reinstatement of the 
workmen, it had also the power to award lesser punishment. The proviso 
to sec.· llA, however, provided that the Tribunal would rely only on the 
material already on record and shall not take fresh evidence. But where 
the enquiry was defective, the Tribunal could take fresh evidence to decide 
the merits of the charges. [763-A-B, DJ 
C 
3. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority to record evidence and 
to come to its own conclusion is very wide. Even if the evidence is recorded 
in the domestic enquiry and the order of dismissal is passed thereafter, it 
will still be open to the Appellate Authority to record, if needed, such D 
evidence as may be produced by the parties. Conversely, also if the domestic 
enquiry is ex-parte or no evidence was recorded during the proceedings, the 
Appellate Authority would be justified in taking additional evidence to come 
to its own conclusions on the vital question whether the employee was guilty 
or not of the charges framed against him. Thus the appellate authority has 
jurisdiction to take evidence at the appellate stage; and it had come to its E 
own conclusion about the guilt of the delinquent employee. [765-B-C] 
4. The appellate authority has interfered with the order of dis-
charge/dismissal of the respondent only on the ground that domestic 
enquiry was not held. It did not decide the application of the appellant for F 
recording evidence. The appellate authority, therefore, committed grave 
error in the exercise of its jurisdiction by not disposing of the application 
of the appellant for additional evidence and proceeding to dispose of the 
appeal on the ground that the order of dismissal having been passed 
without holding a domestic enquiry, was bad in law. [767-1<'-G] 
5. The appellate authority had to come to its own conclusion on the 
basis of the evidence recorded by it, irrespective of the findings recorded 
in the domestic enquiry and the opportunity of hearing which is being 
provided to the respondent at the appellate stage will sufficiently meet the 
G 
demand for a just and proper enquiry. [768-H, 769-A] 
H 
758 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2

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