IMPERIAL TOBACCO COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. ITS WORKMEN
LAWS(SC)-1961-3-14
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
March 16,1961
IMPERIAL TOBACCO COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
ITS WORKMEN
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
GIRISH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-111] [REFERRED TO]STATE OF U P THRU PRIN SECY R E S & ANR VS. RADHEY SHYAM PANDEY & 3 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-368] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY P W D & ANR VS. LATIF AHMAD KHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-408] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD AHMAD KHAN VS. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-127] [REFERRED TO]
VISHESHWAR NATH VS. STATE OF U P & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-165] [REFERRED TO]
TEJ SINGH VS. STATE OF U P THRU D M [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-181] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND SHANKER RATHORE VS. U P COOP INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE BOARD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-326] [REFERRED TO]
MAYANK BABU AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-256] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMVEER GUPTA VS. UTTAR PRADESH SECONDARY EDUCATION SERVICES COMMISSION ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1999-7-135] [REFERRED TO]
M P PERUMAL VS. PRESIDENT PANAIOLAIPADI VILLAGE PANCHAYAT [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-248] [REFERRED TO]
M P PERUMAL VS. PRESIDENT PANAIOLAIPADI VILLAGE PANCHAYAT [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-248] [REFERRED TO]
HARIHAR PRASAD VS. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-227] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SHANKER SRIVASTAVA VS. U P AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-405] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA SHEKHAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-220] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL VS. U P CO OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-202] [REFERRED TO]
SHAFAT ULLAH VS. COMMISSIONER VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2002-4-79] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA SINGH VS. U P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL I [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-226] [REFFERED TO]
SHYAM KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
RAMACHANDRA S AMONKAR VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2000-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1986-8-38] [REFERRED TOSC]
CHHOTEY LAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-248] [REFERRED]
V K DIXIT VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-431] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P AND OTHERS VS. RAJESH KUMAR RAI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-416] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR/SECRETARY [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-204] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. SURESH CHANDRA PATHAK AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-321] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME & ORS VS. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O KABOOL SINGH & ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-407] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P THROUGH SECRETARY FOREST LKO & 2 ORS VS. SANT KUMAR TEWARI & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-434] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI KANT SHUKLA VS. U P STATE PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-440] [REFERRED TO]
HRIDYA SHANKAR TIWARI VS. DISTT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-225] [REFERRED TO]
ASHISH KUMAR TIWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA YADAV VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PRAKASH SINGH VS. STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-82] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA 2927(S/S)2009 VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME LKO. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. MAZDA BEGUM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH THE SECY. PLANNING VIDHAN BHAVAN LKO.AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-1-249] [REFERRED TO]
SINGHASAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P THRU SECRETARY AGRICULTURE & ORS VS. SABHAJIT SINGH S/O SADAFAL SINGH & ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-431] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH SISHODIA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-92] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH VS. KANPUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-65] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH YADAV VS. COMMISSIONER, ALLAHABAD & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-627] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR VERMA VS. ALLAHABAD BANK AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-374] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. KISHORI LAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-140] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KHELAWAN VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-241] [REFERRED TO]
SNEHLATA VS. REGISTRAR AND COMMISSIONER, COOPERATIVE U. P. LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2023-10-112] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-10-114] [REFERRED TO]
GAJENDRA SINGH VS. U. P. POWER CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(ALL)-2023-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR U P CO OP SPG MILS FEDERATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-1999-9-193] [REFERRED TO]
Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Moradabad VS. State of U.P.and Others [LAWS(ALL)-2012-1-306] [REFERRED TO]
KAPTAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-119] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. PRABHASHANKER K ACHARYA [LAWS(GJH)-1988-12-9] [REFERRED]
RAJ BAHADUR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-4-11] [REFFERED TO]
R K MEHROTRA KEDAR NATH MEHROTRA VS. U P SAHKARI SANSTHAGAT SEWA MANDAL [LAWS(ALL)-2005-4-108] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN SINGH VS. NAGAR PALIKA BIJNOR [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-207] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMRAO S O MADHAVRAO BODHANKAR VS. SURESH SHAMRAO BODHANKAR [LAWS(BOM)-1986-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
S.K. SINGH VS. U.P.I. COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-242] [REFERRED TO]
MAYANK BABU AGARWAL VS. JOINT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,ALLAHABAD & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-111] [REFERRED TO]
SYED MANSOOR HASAN RIZVI VS. DIRECTOR, LOCAL BODIES AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-101] [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM OJHA VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-442] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SAGAR VS. STATE OF U P & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ASLAM SIDDIQUI VS. STATE OF U P THRU SECY FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES & 2 O [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-339] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-3-259] [REFERRED TO]
KAPOOR CHAND SRIVASTAVA VS. CHAIRMAN, ZILA PARISHAD, VARANASI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-436] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT PRASAD SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
VEER SINGH VS. DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-208] [REFERRED TO]
VEER SINGH VS. DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-316] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL CHANDRA SINHA BAIJNATH PRASAD SINHA SUB-DIVISIONAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2005-9-315] [REFERRED TO]
TARSEM KUMAR SOOD VS. CHIEF ENGINEER [LAWS(HPH)-1984-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHER SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-2007-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
A UMA RANI VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-270] [REFERRED TO]
K RAJENDRAN VS. TAMIL NADU HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-1991-1-98] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LIMITED VS. GUJARAT STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA [LAWS(SC)-1979-11-34] [RELIED ON]
PRESIDENT, NAGAR PANCHAYAT UMARI VS. SHYAM CHARAN CHATURVEDI [LAWS(SC)-2021-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
R K SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-171] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P AND OTHERS VS. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-437] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP NARAIN PANDEY VS. U.P. CO-OPERAITIVE INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE BOARD [LAWS(ALL)-2018-12-142] [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTTAM YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-147] [REFERRED TO]
SORAJ KUMAR VS. D.I.O.S. MUZAFFARNAGAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-425] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAM (V.) VS. DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICER, CUDDALORE, AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-1985-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
K.T. ANTONY VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-1991-7-87] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P THROUGH PRIN SECY P W D VS. DINESH CHANDRA GUPTA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-3-409] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY HOME POLICE AND OTHERS VS. MAM CHAND TYAGI S/O LATE AMAR CHAND TYAGI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-74] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. SANTOSH KUMAR SARAN [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-132] [REFERRED TO]
JANG BAHADUR LAL SRIVASTAVA VS. U P STATE AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORPN AND ANORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-575] [REFERRED TO]
HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT AND ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-72] [REFERRED TO]
LALTA PRASAD VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-76] [REFERRED TO]
NAND RAM VS. STATE OF U. P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-412] [REFERRED TO]
U. P. S. R. T. C. VS. LABOUR COURT FAIZABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-255] [REFERRED TO]
U P S R T C MORADABAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-1-168] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR U P STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION VS. RADHEY SHYAM [LAWS(ALL)-2004-8-162] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SHANKAR SAXENA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-225] [REFERRED TO]
UMESH CHANDRA VS. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-52] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER VS. THE U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-466] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KISHORE MISRA VS. STATE OF U P THROUGH PRIN SECY REVENUE AND 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-586] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI KUMAR VS. REGIONAL FOOD CONTROLLER & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-441] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-3-190] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PANCHAYAT BHARWARI VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-255] [REFERRED TO]
LILA WATI DEVI W/O LATE GANGA PRASAD TIWARI VS. CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER UNNAO [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-235] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. GULAB SHANKER SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-1-156] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD VAKIL MOHD SULEMAN VS. DEEN DAYAL UPADHYAY GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(ALL)-2005-4-62] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Wanchoo, J. -
(1.)This appeal by special leave arises out of a dispute between the appellant and its workmen with respect to the dismissal of one Akhileshwar Prasad, Akhileshwar Prasad was responsible for the maintenance of leave registers. In December, 1957 he was charged with regard to his willfully omitting to make entries in respect of the annual leave, sick leave and casual leave taken by him during the period from January 1, 1957 to September 28, 1957. He was also charged with altering and overwriting without the appellant's knowledge entries relating to 1957 leave and leave carried forward from the previous year 1956 in respect of certain other employees, thereby intentionally causing wrongful gain to himself and to other clerks. The last charge was with respect to his neglecting the duty of keeping in safe custody the leave register for 1956 which was missing. Akhileshwar Prasad denied his responsibility with respect to these charges and consequently an inquiry was made against him.
(2.)Under the Standing orders of the appellant an elaborate procedure is provided for inquiries into charges of misconduct like the present. The charge has to be read out to the employee and all witnesses in support of the charge are to be examined in his presence unless he deliberately absents himself, in which case a note to that effect has to be recorded. The employee charged is allowed to cross-examine the witnesses if he declines to do so a note to that effect has to be recorded. The employee has liberty to produce such wit-nessesas he wishes, unless he refuses to do so, in which case a note to that effect has to be recorded. After the evidence is over, the branch manager has to make a brief appraisal of the evidence recorded and has to record his conclusion, and the punishment if any intended to be imposed by him in writing. In doing so he has to take into consideration the service record of the employee concerned and has to record what such employee has to say against the intended punishment. He then passes the order of punishment in writing recording the misconduct proved and the punishment imposed in the service record of the employee concerned.
(3.)The main contention on behalf of the respondents was that the procedure prescribed for an inquiry was not followed and therefore the dismissal of Akhileshwar Prasad was invalid. It appears from the record of the inquiry proceeding that after two witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant there was a dispute as to the cross-examination of the second witness. In consequence of this Akhileshwar Prasad declined to cross-examine the second witness further and withdrew from the inquiry. Thereafter it seems that the inquiry was closed and the branch manager passed the following order against Akhileshwar Prasad.:-
"Akhileshwar Prasad dismissed from service under Branch Standing Order 17 (d) with effect from November 27, 1957. This decision has been communicated to him by letter No. P/64/88 dated December 11, 1957."
A reference was made to the labour court by the Government of Bihar on February 25, 1958, asking it to decide whether the dismissal of Shri Akhileshwar Prasad was justified and if not, whether he was entitled to reinstatement or any other relief, the labour court held that Akhileshwar Prasad was incharge of the have register. It also held that the inquiry was not carried out as required by the Rules and therefore the order of dismissal was invalid. It then went into the question whether the appellant had justified the order of dismissal before it and came to the conclusion that though there was some negligence on the part of Akhileshwar Prasad, it was not such as to bring, the case within Standing Order 16 (d), (k) or (1) with which he was charged. However it held that as the omissions were also in respect of Akhileshwar Prasad's own leave account of which he should have been more particular, it ordered his reinstatement with only 50 per cent, of his wages for the period of his absence from duty, as, in its opinion, that penalty was proper in the ends of justice.
(2.)Under the Standing orders of the appellant an elaborate procedure is provided for inquiries into charges of misconduct like the present. The charge has to be read out to the employee and all witnesses in support of the charge are to be examined in his presence unless he deliberately absents himself, in which case a note to that effect has to be recorded. The employee charged is allowed to cross-examine the witnesses if he declines to do so a note to that effect has to be recorded. The employee has liberty to produce such wit-nessesas he wishes, unless he refuses to do so, in which case a note to that effect has to be recorded. After the evidence is over, the branch manager has to make a brief appraisal of the evidence recorded and has to record his conclusion, and the punishment if any intended to be imposed by him in writing. In doing so he has to take into consideration the service record of the employee concerned and has to record what such employee has to say against the intended punishment. He then passes the order of punishment in writing recording the misconduct proved and the punishment imposed in the service record of the employee concerned.
(3.)The main contention on behalf of the respondents was that the procedure prescribed for an inquiry was not followed and therefore the dismissal of Akhileshwar Prasad was invalid. It appears from the record of the inquiry proceeding that after two witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant there was a dispute as to the cross-examination of the second witness. In consequence of this Akhileshwar Prasad declined to cross-examine the second witness further and withdrew from the inquiry. Thereafter it seems that the inquiry was closed and the branch manager passed the following order against Akhileshwar Prasad.:-
"Akhileshwar Prasad dismissed from service under Branch Standing Order 17 (d) with effect from November 27, 1957. This decision has been communicated to him by letter No. P/64/88 dated December 11, 1957."
A reference was made to the labour court by the Government of Bihar on February 25, 1958, asking it to decide whether the dismissal of Shri Akhileshwar Prasad was justified and if not, whether he was entitled to reinstatement or any other relief, the labour court held that Akhileshwar Prasad was incharge of the have register. It also held that the inquiry was not carried out as required by the Rules and therefore the order of dismissal was invalid. It then went into the question whether the appellant had justified the order of dismissal before it and came to the conclusion that though there was some negligence on the part of Akhileshwar Prasad, it was not such as to bring, the case within Standing Order 16 (d), (k) or (1) with which he was charged. However it held that as the omissions were also in respect of Akhileshwar Prasad's own leave account of which he should have been more particular, it ordered his reinstatement with only 50 per cent, of his wages for the period of his absence from duty, as, in its opinion, that penalty was proper in the ends of justice.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.