VISHWESHWARAIAH IRON AND STEEL LTD. versus ABDUL GANI AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 119 · Decided: 11-11-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

_, 
VISHWESHWARAIAH IRON AND STEEL LTD. 
A 
v. 
ABDUL GANI AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 11, 1997 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, J947 : Sections JO, JOA and 33. 
labour law-Termination of service withol1t domestic enquiry-
Termination upheld on evidence adduced before the Court of Reference C 
under Section J 0-Question whether order of labour Court would take effect 
from the date of original order of termination-Question referred to 
Constitution Bench. 
R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer & Anr.,. fl997) I SCC 9 and D 
Punjab Dairy Development Corporation ltd. & Anr. v. Kala Singh & Ors., 
( 1997] 6 sec 159, held inapplicable. 
P.H. Kalyani v. Air Francf! Calcutta, (1964( 2 SCR 104; Mis Sasa 
Musa Sugar Works (P) ltd v. Shobrati Khan & Ors., (1959( Supp. 2 SCR 
836 and Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd & Ors. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor E 
Sabha & Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 598, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7671-72 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.97 of the Karnataka High Court F 
in W.A. No. 7of1996 and 4362of1995. 
Dhruv Mehta, G.M. Misra, Fazlin Anam, Ms. Sofia Verma and S.K. 
Mehta for the Appellant. · 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
Learned counsel for the petitioner referred us to a decision of a Bench 
of two learned Judges of this Court in the case of R. Thiruvil"kolam v. 
Presiding Officer & Anr. reported in, (1997] I SCC 9 which has been later 
followed by a Bench of three learned Judges in the q1se of Punjab Dairy 
Development Corporation ltd & Anr. v. Kala Singh & Ors., reported in, H 
119 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A (1997] 6 SCC 159. In our view, these are the cases where the mahagement held 
defective inquiry and before the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal the 
defect was sought to be removed by leading evidence and ultimately if the 
Court seized of a reference under Section I 0 of the Industrial Disputes Act 
agreed with the management on the new evidence led before it, the question 
B of relation back of the order of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to the 
original order of termination would assume importance. But in cases where no 
domestic inquiry is held at all, as in the present case, in our view the aforesaid 
decisions would not apply. 
Learned counsel is very sanguine when he contends that the decision 
C of the Constitution Bench in the case of P.H. Ka!yani v. Mis Air France 
Calcutta reported in the (1964] 2 SCR 104 squarely applies to the facts of 
the present case also and for that purpose he submits that the observation 
in the Constitution Bench Judgment regarding Mis. Sasa Musa Sugar Works 
(P) ltd. v. Shobrati Khan & Ors. reported in [ l 959] Supp. 2 SCR 836 would 
not apply in connection with the termination orders passed without domestic 
D inquiry and that ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in Ka/yani 's case 
would squarely apply, where admittedly no enquiry was held by the 
management before terminating the services of the employee. In our view, 
these observations in Ka/yani 's case were rendered in connection with 
proceeding for approval of the management's action under Section 33(2) of 
E the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even Saia Musa Sugar Works' case also 
pertains to a proceeding under Section 33(!) of the l.D. Act for permission. 
Therefore, the observations of the Constitution Bench in Kalyani's case in 
connection with Sasa Musa Sugar Works' case which is under Section 33(1) 
of the Act will require a closer scrutiny in so far as they are to be applied 
to a proceeding arising out of a reference under Section l 0 or I 0-A of the 
F Industrial Disputes Act which would stand on a different footing. 
The moot question would arise whether the ratio of the Constitution 
Bench judgment in Ka/yani 's case would almost automatically a'pply to such 
cases apart from the cases arising under Section 33 of the I.D. Act. We may, 
G in this connection, mention that the decision of the three Judge Bench of this 
Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes ltd. & Ors. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor 
Sabha & Ors. reported in [ 1980] 2 SCC 598 wherein Krishna Iyer, J., spoke 
for the majorify, was an authority on the question of leading evidence before 
the Industrial Court in proceedings under Section 10 .. A of the Act and--on the 
question of relation back of ultimate penalty order passed oy'the ar15itrator 
H on the basis of evidence led by the management for ju

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