http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB DIARY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KALA SINGH ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/05/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIRAHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:     WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 228 OF1995  O R D E R In CA No. 6339/94  he  was charged  for the  misconduct that on April 28,1990 and onother dates,  he inflated  the quantumof themilk supplies in  milk centres  to the  appellant-Corporation and also inflated  the quality  of the fat contents, while there were  less  fat contents.  After  conducting  the  domestic enquiry,  the  disciplinary  authoritydismissed  himfrom service. On  reference,the  Labour  Court  found  that the domestic enquiry  conducted bythe appellant was defective. Consequently, opportunity;  wasgiven  to the  Management to adduce evidence afreshto  justify the order of dismissal. Accordingly, evidence  was adduced  by the appellant aswell as  the  delinquent-respondent.  On  consideration  of the evidence, the  Labour court  by its  award  dated  November 14,1990held  that thecharge had  been proved against the respondent. Onthe quantum  ofpunishment, it was heldthat the punishmentwas notdisproportionate to themagnitude of the Misconductof the respondent. However, on filing of the writ petition,the High  Courtset  aside theaward of the reference Curtto theextent of  the confirmation  of the dismissal    from  service  with  effect  the  date  of the judgement of  the Labour  Courtan not from anydate earlier thereto. This court while granting leave referred the matter to three  judgeBench  to consider  thecorrectness  of the judgment in  Desh Raj  Gupta’s case  (supra) inthe light of the judgment  of the  Constitution Bench.  Subsequent to the reference, another  Bench  of  two  judges  has elaborately considered theentire case  law  in  R.  Thiruvirkolam vs. Presiding officer  & Anr.  [(1997) 1 SCC 9]. Inthe decision of theConstitution Bench  in P.H.  Kalyani vs.  Air France [(1964)2 SCR 104], This court had heldthat once the Labour Court found  the domestic  enquiry to  be defective andgave opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence foundthat the order  of termination  of the  service or dismissalfrom serviceis valid. it would relate back to the original order of thedismissal. buta discarded  note was  expressed  by three Judges  bench inGujaratsteel Tubes ltd. Vs. Mazdoor

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Sabha [(1980)  2 SCC 593] whichwas considered by this Court      This matter  has come  up by way of reference madeby a bench of three Judges to consider the decision of this court in Desh Raj Gupta  vs.Industrial Tribunal. IV, U.P. &Anr. [(1991)1  SCC 249] With a viewto appreciate the contention of theparties, it  isnecessary  to  record  few  relevant facts. While  the respondent  was working as a Dairy Helper- cum-Cleaner forcollecting the milk from various center in Thiruvirkolam  case (supra)and it was heldthat inview of the judgmentof the constitution Bench, three-judge Bench judgment was  not correct.  Desh Rai  Gupta’s case  wasalso considered andit washeld that  it has not been correctly decided. Thus,we are relievedof reviewing the entirecase law in that behalf.      Inview  of the  aforesaiddecisions and in view of the findings recorded  by  the  labour  court,  weare  of the considered opinion  that the  view  expressed  in  Desh Raj Gupta’scase  is not  correct. It is accordingly over-ruled. Following the  judgmentof  theConstitution  Bench, wehold that on the Labour  court’s recordinga finding  that the domestic enquiry  was defective and giving  opportunity  to adduce the  evidence by the management and the workman and recording  of  t  he  finding  that  the  dismissal  by the management wasvalid. it  would relate back to the date of the original dismissal and not from thedate ofthe judgment of the Labour Court.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. The  order of the High Court stands set aside. Nocosts. In CA No. 228/95      This is  across  appeal filed  bythe  workman. It  is contended by  the learned  counsel forthe workman that the chargeswere  not correct; the Labour Court hasnot properly considered theevidence and the view that the order relates back to the date  of the dismissal wasnot correct. Wefind no force in thecontention. It is seen that theLabour Court after adduction of evidence came to the conclusion that the dismissal is  justifiable. On  the  basis  of  the  evidence adducedbeforeit, nodoubt,the  Labour  Court  has not elaborately consideredthe entire  evidence, but  agreed to the decision  that the misconduct hasbeen proved. Inview of theproof of misconduct, the necessary consequence would be that the management has lost  t he confidence that the appellant would truthfully  and  faithfully  carry  on his duties and consequentlythe labour Court rightly declined to exercise the  power under  Section 11-A to grant  relief of reinstatement with minor penalty.      The appealis accordingly dismissed. No costs.