WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. AND ANR. versus HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 12-12-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
428 
. i 
WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. AND ORS. 
December 12, 1984. 
[D.A. DESAI AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
-' lnduJtrial Disputes Act 1947, Schedule 2, Item No. 3 and Schedule 2, 
Item 6. 
Public Sector UndertaklnT--Standing Order No. 32-General Manager 
empowered to dismisJ workman without holding an enquiry if 'inexpedient or 
against the Interests of secli.Tlty to continue to employ the workman'-Such . 
Standing Order whether 1/olatfve of the principles of natural justice-Dismissal 
of employee without holding dCJmestic enquiry under the Standing Order-Whether 
ralld, legal and pmnlsslble. 
· 
Constitution of India 1950 Article 311(2) provisos (b) and (c). 
D 
Power to dlsmls1 ci-Jil servant without holding inquiry-When arises-
. Introduction of safeguard-That authority must specify reasons why not 
reaJonably practicable to hold ilfquiry. 
1 
Practice aizd Procedure-Labour disputes-Adjudication of-Dismissal of 
employee-Decision of employer to dispense with domestic enquir)" questioned-
Duty of employer to satisfy the court that holding of enquiry would be counter-
E 
productive or cause i"eparable and lrrel'ersible damage. 
Standing Order 31 of the 1st Respon-dent/PubUc Sector Undertaking 
prescribed a detailed procedure for dealing with cases of misconduct; and for 
imposing major penalty, the employer had to draw up a chargesheet and 
give an opportunity to the deUnquent work.man to make his representation 
within 7 days. If the allegations were controverted, an enquiry had to be 
F 
held by an officer to be nominated by the management and in such an 
enquiry reasonable opportunity of explaining and defending the alleged 
misccnduct had to be given to the workman. 1 Suspension of tbC delinquent 
workman pending enquiry was also permitted. At the end of the enquiry, if 
the charges were held proved, and it was provisionally decided to impose a 
major ___ penalty, the delinquent workman had to be afforded a further 
reason~ble opportunity to represent why the penalty should not be imposed 
G. -~on him. 
ll 
Standing Order 32 provided for a special procedure in c3.se of a 
workman was convicted for a criminal offence in a court of law or where 
the General Manager was satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that 
it was inexpedient or against the interests of security to continue to employ 
the workmen•, viz., the y,.orkman could be removed or dismissed from 
service without followin!J the procedure laid down in Standin~ Order No; 31, 
-+ 
• 
' 
WORKMBN v. HINDUSTAN STFEL LTD. 
429 
The appellant ao Assistant in the 1st Respondent-undertaking was 
A 
removed from service on the ground that it was ~no longer expedient' to 
employ him. The managem~nt dispensed with the depart1nental enquiry, 
after looking into the secret report uf (1:1e of their officers th<lt the 
appellant had misbehaved with the wife of an employee and that a com-
plaint in respect thereof had been lodged with the police. 
In the reference to the Industrial T1 ibun~tJ, the Tribunal held that as 
the employer dispensed with the disciplint1ry enquiry in exercise of the power 
conferred by Standing Order 32, it cou:d not be said that the dismissal from 
service was not justified, and that if there were allegations of misconduct, 
the employer \\las quite competent to pass an order of removal from service 
without holding any enquiry in view of tbc provisions contained in Standing 
Order 32, and rejected the reference. 
Allowing the appe:il, IJy the employee to this Court, 
B 
c 
,. J 
HELD: 1. The reasons for dispensing with the enquiry do not spell 
• • 
out what was the nature of the misconduct alleged to have been committed 
by the appelJant and what prompted the General Manager to dispense with 
the enquiry. [4370] 
2. As there was no justification for dispensing with the enquiry, 
D 
imposition of penaly of dismissal without the disciplinary enquiry as con .. 
templated by Standing Order 31 is illegal and invalid. [437F] 
3. The respondent shall recall and cancel the order da1ed August 24, 
1970 removing the appellant from service and reinstate him ac:d on the same 
day the appellant shall tender resignation of his past which shall be accepted 
by the respondent. The respondent shall pay as .ind by way of back wages 
and future wages, a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the appellant within 2 months 
which shall be spread over frorn year to year commencing from the date of 
removal from service. The app

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