Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – ss.10, 33(2)(b) – Termination – Departmental Enquiry against workman-conductor (since deceased) for not issuing the tickets even after collecting the amount of tickets – Terminated in 2001 – Order of termination approved in 2015 by Industrial Tribunal – After a period of approximately
19 years from the date of passing the order of termination, the workman again raised the Industrial Dispute, Labour Court set aside the order of termination and passed order awarding 50% back wages from the date of termination till his death in 2018 – Confirmed by High Court – On appeal, held : Once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal and the management was permitted to lead the evidence and prove the misconduct before the Court and on appreciation of evidence the order of termination was approved, thereafter fresh reference u/s.10 challenging the order of termination was not permissible – 2015 order passed by the Industrial Tribunal which as such is a higher forum than the Labour Court had attained finality – Though the aforesaid fact was pointed out before the High Court, it did not consider the same – Findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were binding between the parties – No contrary view could have been taken by the Labour Court contrary to the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal – Award passed by the Labour Court confirmed by High Court set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The workman was subjected to departmental enquiry and the charge against the deceased workman was not issuing the tickets to 10 passengers though he collected the fare. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry his services were terminated. The termination was the subject matter of the approval application before the Industrial Tribunal in an application under Section 337(2)(b) of the I.D. Act. In the said proceedings the management was permitted to lead the evidence and prove the charge/misconduct before the Tribunal. In the said application the parties led the evidence, both, oral as well as documentary. Thereafter on appreciation of evidence on record, the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 21.07.2015 approved the order of termination. That thereafter the workman raised the Industrial Dispute challenging the order of termination which as such was proved by the Industrial Tribunal by order dated 21.07.2015. Therefore, once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal and the management was permitted to lead the evidence and prove the misconduct before the Court and thereafter on appreciation of evidence the order of termination was approved, thereafter the fresh reference under Section 10 of the I.D. Act challenging the order of termination was not permissible. It is required to be noted that the order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal which as such is a higher forum than the Labour Court had attained the finality. Though the aforesaid fact was pointed out before the High Court, the High Court has not at all considered and/or appreciated the same and has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court for setting aside the order of termination which as such was approved by the Industrial Tribunal. In the present case by specific order the Industrial Tribunal permitted the management to lead the evidence and prove the misconduct before the Court which as such was permissible.That thereafter the Industrial Tribunal approved the order of termination. Once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led before it, thereafter the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were binding between the parties. No contrary view could have been taken by the Labour Court contrary to the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. The judgment and award passed by the Labour Court confirmed by the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court has committed a very serious error in dismissing the writ petition/writ appeal confirming the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of termination. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court confirming the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of termination and the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court setting aside the order of termination are hereby quashed and set aside [Paras 5.1, 5.2, 6 and 7][280-FH; 281-A-H; 282-A] John D’Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (2019) 14 Scale 57 – held inapplicable
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.