U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. versus SHIVAJI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 972 · Decided: 10-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. ST A TE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. 
B 
c 
v. 
SHNAJI 
NOVEMBER IO, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
s.11 A-Workman removed from service pursuant to domestic inquiry-
Labour Court holding that workman was guilty of serious misconduct-High 
Court holding that there was no evidence to prove charges-Held, Labour 
Court did not assign any reason as to how the charges could be said to have 
D been proved-It did not analyse the evidence adduced by the parties at. all 
nor did it take into consideration power under s.11-A in regard to quantum 
of punishment-Judgment of High Court directing reinstatement cannot be 
faulted-Applying doctrine of proportionali~v reinstatement upheld, however, 
with 25% back wages. 
E 
Respondent, a driver in the appellant-Corporation was removed from 
service pursuant to a domestic inquiry held against him on the charge that 
he dashed into a barrier intentionally and caused injuries to one person. The 
Labour Court held the domestic inquiry not to be legal and valid, and granted 
opportunity to the Corporation to adduce evidence to prove the charge. 
F Ultimately, the Labour Court held that the workman was guilty of serious 
misconduct and had no right to remain in service. But, the High Court allowed 
workman's writ petition holding that sequence of the events in the case clearly 
established that it was a case of no evidence. It directed reinstatement of the 
worker with 50% of back wages. 
G 
In the present appeal filed by the Corporation it was contended that the 
H 
workman having been found guilty of serious charge of misconduct by the 
Labour Court, the findings should not have been interfered with by the High 
Court. 
972 
-· 
U.P. STATEROADTRANSPORTCORPN. v. SHIVAJI 
973 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.1. The Labour Court exercised its jurisdiction under s.I IA of 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Its opinion in the matter has, therefore, to 
be judged on the basis of the evidence adduced before it. The Labour Court 
A 
did not analyse the evidence adduced by the parties at all. It adopted a wrong B 
approach. It did not consider as to whether the person who was examined on 
behalf of the Corporation, could have operated the said barrier particularly 
when his job was only to serve water to other employees. The barrier, 
according to him, had not been put up by the Corporation. He was not on duty 
to operate the said barrier. The public allegedly installed the said barrier for 
which no authority existed. The Labour Court did not assign any reason as C 
to how the charges could be said to have been proved nor did it take into 
consideration the power under s.11-A of the Act in regard to quantum of 
punishment. Why it opined that the workman was guilty of serious 
misconduct and had no right to remain in service has not been explained. 
(976-C-E; 977-EJ D 
1.2. The fact as to why the said barrier was put up and whether the same 
was within the knowledge of all the drivers of the Corporation had not been 
disclosed. Even according to the said witness, no First Information Report 
was lodged. He did not receive any serious injury. The offence to cause any 
intentional injury cannot be said to have been proved. The High Court was, E 
therefore, not wholly incorrect in opining that there was no evidence to prove 
the charges levelled against him. (976-F; 977-DJ 
2. The workman was out of service for a long time. During the pendency 
of the domestic inquiry he had been kept under suspension. He, however, was 
driving rashly and negligently. In a case of this nature, doctrine of p 
proportionality would also be applicable. The Labour Court also did not 
consider this aspect of the matter. Since only a charge of negligence had 
been proved against him, he is directed to be reinstated in service with 25% 
back wages. (977-G-H; 978-A-B] 
Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Syed Hussain, (2006) 3 SCC 173, G 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4779 of2006. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2004 of the High Court of 
H 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 23726of1998. 
Pradeep Misra, Adv. for the Appellants. 
Mrs .. K. Sarada Devi, Adv. for the Respondent. 
B 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
Respondent was appointed as a Driver by Appellants herein. 
On 
07 .12.1986, he was dri

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