http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3051-3052 of 2008

PETITIONER: Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh

RESPONDENT: Management of M/s. Usha Breco Ltd. & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/04/2008

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.3051-3052  OF 2008 [Arising out of  SLP (Civil) Nos. 17429-17430 of 2004]

S.B. SINHA, J :          1.      Leave granted. 2.      Application of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for  short "the Act"), as noticed by this Court in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co.  v. The Management and Others [(1973) 1 SCC 813], in the facts and  circumstances of the present case, is in question in these appeals which arise  out of a judgment and order dated 16.02.2004 passed by a Division Bench of  the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 348 of  2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 9 of 2001. 3.      Krishna Kishore Yadav, Intervenor and one R.P. Singh were  employees of the respondent.  They were said to be Union leaders.  On or  about 17.02.1984, the respondent received a complaint from one G.  Natarajan with regard to acts of misconduct committed by the said workmen  in the factory premises contending that while he was having discussions with  one Shekhar Rao, representative of the contractor known as M/s. Techno  Fab, the said workmen came and asked him as to whether there existed any  arrangement for grant of first aid or not, whereto he replied that such a  provision has to be made by the Company and not by the Contractor.   Discussion therein ensued.  The workmen were informed by Natarajan that  the matter should be discussed with the Personnel Manager of the Company.         One Shri Dara Singh, another contractor being M/s. S.D. Construction  also reached there.  The same question was asked to Mr. Dara Singh to  which also he replied that the grant of making provision of first aid was the  duty of the Management and not that of the Contractor.           The workmen started misbehaving with the said persons using  indecent and unparliamentary languages.  They were abused in a harsh tone  whereto an objection was raised by Shri Dara Singh whereupon he was  abused in filthy languages and threatened him with dire consequences.  He  was also assaulted by iron rod by the intervenor herein.  Thereafter Shri  Dara Singh also picked up an iron rod.  R.P. Singh also picked up another  iron rod in his hand.  With the intervention of the officers and some workers,  they were separated.  The said workmen thereafter instigated the workers to  stop the work.   4.      On the aforementioned allegations, a First Information Report was  lodged.           A disciplinary proceeding was also initiated.  The delinquent  workmen were placed under suspension.  In the departmental proceedings,  they were found guilty.  An industrial dispute was raised whereupon the  appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication by a Labour  Court, Jamshedpur.  Before the Labour Court, a plea was raised by the  workmen that they as Secretary and Vice-President of the workers of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Company had gone to Shri Natarajan and others for ventilating their  grievances, but the management with a view to victimize them and by way  of resorting to unfair labour practices had placed them under suspension. 5.      Several issues were framed having regard to the pleadings of the  parties by the learned Labour Court.           The question as to whether the domestic enquiry has been conducted  in accordance with the principles of natural justice or otherwise legal was  taken up as a preliminary issue.  The Enquiry Officer was examined before  the Labour Court.  The Presiding Officer, Labour Court by an order dated  16.08.1990 opined: "6. Perused the inquiry report.  In the inquiry  report, the Enquiry Officer has mentioned the  evidence of all witnesses on the basis of which  decision was taken in respect of the charges.  The  oral and the documentary evidence has been  mentioned and the decision is based on them.  The  show cause of the workmen has also been  considered.  Therefore, enquiry report cannot be  said to be perverse.

7.      Therefore, it is held that the domestic  enquiry has been made following the principles of  natural justice and is legal and the second question  is answered against the workmen and in favour of  the Management."

6.      However, by reason of a final award dated 17.02.1992, the Presiding  Officer, Labour Court, while determining the issue as to whether the  management had been able to prove the charges levelled against the  workmen, upon considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, held: "13.    On the basis of evidences on record adduced  on behalf of both the parties and discussions made  above the picture comes out on the surface that in  course of demanding First Aid for the workmen by  these two dismissed workmen from the  management and contractors caused heated  discussions between the contractors and these  workmen who are office bearers of the union and  the management has taken side on favour of the  contractors and against these two workmen such  probably because of their demand and trade union  activities (vide ext W/2 series and statements of  W.W/1 and W.W/2 and ext. M/4 and M/7) and has  made a mole to mountain.  It has also established  that the management has failed to establish any of  the charges against any of the workmen  successfully.  Hence, issue no. (1) is answered  accordingly."

7.      On the aforementioned premise, the Labour Court held that no charge  had been proved against the workmen and as such they were entitled to be  reinstated in service.  So far as the workman Krishna Kishore Yadav is  concerned, similar finding was arrived at by the Labour Court opining: "\005From the perusal of the evidences in the  statement of W.W/1 and W.W/2 it appears that the  Workmen K.K. Yadav received the c/sheet dated  18.2.84 on the same day and submitted his  explanation within the time limit therein.  Hence,  on the basis of the evidences and the statement,  noted above and the statements of the management  witnesses and the statement as W.W/1 and W.W/2.   I find that there was scuffle between the contractor  and this workman and both shouted against each  other which was merely psychological and natural

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

in such a situation and nothing untoward happened  nor any injury was caused to anybody.  The record  reflects that the workman K.K. Yadav has taken  the c/sheet and submitted the explanation  responding it and there was power cut on the day  of occurrence for some time as well which caused  the stopping of the factory."

8.      A writ petition was filed by the appellant questioning the legality and  validity of the said Award.  A learned Single Judge of the High Court by a  judgment and order dated 31.07.2000 refused to interfere with the findings  of fact arrived at by the learned Labour Court.  However, the learned Single  Judge reduced the amount of back wages to 50%.   

9.      The matter was taken to the Division Bench of the High Court by way  of Letters Patent Appeals preferred by both the appellant and the respondent.   The said appeal was allowed as regards the question posed by the Labour  Court as to whether the management had been able to prove the charges  levelled against the workmen on the basis of the evidences brought on  records.  Having regard to the fact that no evidence was laid by the parties  before the Labour Court, it was observed: "\005Obviously, it was because of its own  conclusion that the Domestic Enquiry was valid  and proper.  So, no occasion arose for the Labour  Court to ask itself the question whether on the  evidence, the charges have been proved.  In fact,  as we have earlier noted, the very finding on  16.8.1990 was to the effect that the findings of  the Domestic Enquiry was supported by the  evidence taken at that Enquiry.  Thus, in our  view, the Labour Court had asked itself a wrong  question when it posed the first question for  decision.  Thereafter it has proceeded to record a  finding that the Management has not proved the  charged levelled against the workmen.  When a  Tribunal has asked itself a wrong question and  even if it has answered that question correctly, it  acts outside its jurisdiction attracting the  certiorari jurisdiction of this Court (see  Anisiminic).  Here, the Labour Court has  committed such an error of jurisdiction."

        10.     Before us, Krishna Kishore Yadav got himself impleaded as a party  and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original appellant was  permitted to withdraw. 11.     Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  impleaded party, would submit that the Division Bench of the High Court  committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it  failed to take into consideration that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court  under Section 11-A of the Act being a wide one, the same can be exercised  not only for the purpose of determination of a preliminary issue with regard  to the validity or otherwise of holding of the Domestic Enquiry, the Labour  Court is entitled to reappreciate the evidence and alter the quantum of  punishment.  Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Delhi Cloth &  General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh [(1972) 1 SCC 595] and Firestone  Tyre and Rubber Co. (supra). 12.     Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondent, on the other hand, would submit that although the jurisdiction of  the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act is wide, in a case of this  nature where the preliminary issue was answered in favour of the  Management, it could not have been gone into the merit of the decision of  the disciplinary authority relying on or on the basis of the enquiry report to  arrive at a different finding on the merit of the matter to hold :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

(a)     that the charges of misconduct against the impleaded applicant has  not been proved; (b)     the quantum of punishment imposed upon the impleaded applicant  was excessive.         Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Tata Engineering and  Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. N.K. Singh [(2006) 12 SCC 554] and Delhi  Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [(2004) 7 SCC 574]. 13.     An order of punishment meted out to a workman indisputably can be a  subject matter of reference by the appropriate government in terms of  Section 10 of the Act. 14.     Validity or legality of a Domestic Enquiry as also the question as to  whether the principles of natural justice had been complied or not could be  determined by way of a preliminary issue.  What would be the extent of  jurisdiction of the Labour Court in this behalf, had come up for  consideration before this Court in a large number of decisions.  The view  taken by this Court was that if the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry  officer on the materials placed before it was a possible view, the Labour  Court would have no jurisdiction to substitute its own judgment although it  could itself have arrived at a different conclusion on the same materials.   [See Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee (1958) SCR 514 and State Bank of  India v. R.K. Jain and Others, (1972) 4 SCC 304] 15.     In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. (supra), this Court inter alia relied  upon the aforementioned decisions amongst others to opine that the  propriety of a domestic enquiry held by the Management should be gone  into as a preliminary issue and in the event the same is decided against it, a  request could be made to the tribunal to permit it to adduce fresh evidence  before it.  [See also Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. M. Chandrasekhar  Reddy and Others (2005) 2 SCC 481] 16.     Keeping in view the diverse opinion rendered by different High  Courts which had been noticed by this Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills  Co. (supra), the Parliament inserted Section 11-A in the Act by Act No. 45  of 1971 which came into force with effect from 15.12.1971. 17.     In the statement of objects and reasons for inserting Section 11-A of  the Act, it was stated:  "In Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited v.  Workmen (AIR 1958 SC 130 at 138), the Supreme  Court, while considering the Tribunal’s power to  interfere with the management’s decision to dismiss,  discharge or terminate the services of a workman, has  observed that in case of dismissal on misconduct, the  Tribunal does not act as a Court of appeal and  substitute its own judgment for that of the  management and that the Tribunal will interfere only  when there is want of good faith, victimisation, unfair  labour practice, etc., on the part of the management. The International Labour Organisation, in its  recommendation (No. 119) concerning termination of  employment at the initiative to the employer, adopted  in June 1963, has recommended that a worker  aggrieved by the termination of his employment  should be entitled to appeal against the termination  among others, to a neutral body such as an arbitrator,  a court, an arbitration committee or a similar body and  that the neutral body concerned should be empowered  to examine the reasons given in the termination of  employment and that other circumstances relating to  the case and to render a decision on the justification of  the termination. The International Labour  Organization has further recommended that the  neutral body should be empowered (if it finds that the  termination of employment was unjustified) to order  that the worker concerned, unless reinstated with  unpaid wages, should be paid adequate compensation  or afforded some other relief. In accordance with these recommendations, it is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

considered that the Tribunal’s power in an  adjudication proceeding relating to discharge or  dismissal of a workman should not be limited and that  the Tribunal should have the power in cases wherever  necessary to set aside the order of discharge or  dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on  such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or  give such other reliefs to the workman including the  award of any letter punishment in lieu of discharge or  dismissal as the circumstances of the case may  require. For this purpose, a new Section 11-A is  proposed to be inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act,  1947\005."

18.     We may, however, notice that new Section 11-A was not noticed by  this Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. (supra) although the same was  inserted on 15.12.1971. 19.     Interpretation of Section 11-A of the Act came up for consideration  before this Court in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (supra).  It was opined  that Section 11-A of the Act had brought about a complete change in this  behalf.  This Court, despite insertion of Section 11-A,  not only conferred  jurisdiction on the Tribunal to alter the quantum of punishment imposed  upon a workman, but also held that it can enter into the merit of the matter  so far as determination of the proof of misconduct or otherwise on the part  of the workman is concerned.         Two extreme views, viz., that the entire law has been re-written and  despite insertion of Section 11-A, the Management neither could raise the  legality or validity of the Domestic Enquiry as a preliminary issue or request  the Tribunal to allow it to adduce evidence before it even if no enquiry has  been held or as to whether such a right can still be exercised by the  management came up for consideration in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co.  (supra).         One of the questions posed by Vaidialingam, J. was as to whether  Section 11-A has made any changes in the legal position as regards the  principles which had emerged from various decisions and as noticed in   Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. (supra).  Rejecting both the extreme  contentions and starting on the premise that the Act is a beneficial piece of  legislation enacted in the interest of the employees, it was held that although  the legal right of the Management to raise such a preliminary issue and in  the event the same was determined in favour of the workmen to lead  evidence for the first time before the Tribunal/Labour Court could not be  denied, opining: "\005The Tribunal is now at liberty to consider not  only whether the finding of misconduct recorded  by an employer is correct; but also to differ from  the said finding if a proper case is made out. What  was once largely in the realm of the satisfaction of  the employer, has ceased to be so; and now it is the  satisfaction of the Tribunal that finally decides the  matter."

       It was furthermore held: "40. Therefore, it will be seen that both in  respect of cases where a domestic enquiry has been  held as also in cases where the Tribunal considers  the matter on the evidence adduced before it for  the first time, the satisfaction under Section 11-A,  about the guilt or otherwise of the workman  concerned, is that of the Tribunal. It has to  consider the evidence and come to a conclusion  one way or other. Even in cases where an enquiry  has been held by an employer and a finding of  misconduct arrived at, the Tribunal can now differ  from that finding in a proper case and hold that no  misconduct is proved."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

       [See also United Bank of India v. Tamil Nadu Banks Deposit  Collectors Union and Anr. 2007 (13) SCALE 681] 20.     The legal principle, in our opinion, is neither in doubt nor in dispute.   The question is that of its application.           We at the outset must, with respect, observe that the jurisdictional  issue determined by the Labour Court was not premised on a wrong  question.  It was one thing to say that an administrative body or a quasi- judicial authority misdirected itself in determining the issue by posing unto  itself a wrong question which would obviously lead to a wrong answer, but,  it would be another thing to say that although the administrative authority or  the quasi-judicial body did not lack inherent jurisdiction but committed a  jurisdictional error in exercising its jurisdiction.  Anisminic v. Foreign  Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 : (1969) 1 All ER 208, to  which reference has been made by the Division Bench says so.  The High  Court, therefore, in our opinion, was not correct in its view having regard to  the binding precedent operating in this behalf in Firestone Tyre and Rubber  Co. (supra) that the first question posed by the Labour Court amounted to a  misdirection in law.  The proper issue which should have been posed was as  to whether a case for interference had been made out. 21.     The Management filed an application for determination of the  preliminary issue in regard to the legality or validity of the domestic enquiry.   The entire records of the enquiry proceedings were produced before the  Labour Court.  The workmen concerned had raised all possible objections  therein.  They examined themselves.  The Labour Court in its order dated  16.08.1990, however, determined the issue in favour of the Management and  against the workmen.  It not only held that the principles of natural justice  have been complied with, it opined that the enquiry report was not perverse. 22.     We may, however, notice that the Presiding Officer of the Labour  Court in the said order itself stated that the evidence would be reappreciated  on merit at the time of hearing.  The parties, despite the said observations,  did not adduce any fresh evidence.  The merit of the decision of the Enquiry  Officer vis-‘-vis the Disciplinary Authority was judged on the basis of the  materials brought on records in the domestic enquiry. 23.     The question, therefore, although was posed correctly by the Labour  Court but what was also necessary to be considered for arriving at a decision  thereupon was as to whether it was a proper case where the Labour Court  should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act  or not.           Whereas the Management cannot resort to victimization and unfair  labour practice so as to get rid of the Union leaders, they in turn are bound to  maintain discipline.           It may not be a correct approach for a superior court to proceed on the  premise that an Act is a beneficient legislation in favour of the Management  or the workmen.   The provisions of the statute must be construed having  regard to the tenor of the terms used by the Parliament.  The court must  construe the statutory provision with a view to uphold the object and purport  of the Parliament.  It is only in a case where there exists a grey area and the  court feels difficulty in interpreting or in construing and applying the statute,  the doctrine of beneficient construction can be taken recourse to.  Even in  cases where such a principle is resorted to, the same would not mean that the  statute should be interpreted in a manner which would take it beyond the  object and purport thereof. 24.     An enquiry against a workman is held in terms of Standing Orders  certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 or in  absence thereof in terms of the Model Standing Order.   25.     The Management is not only required to scrupulously follow the  procedures laid down therein but was otherwise bound to comply with the  principles of natural justice.  If a misconduct has been committed within the  purview of the provisions of the Standing Order, whether certified or Model,  the workmen should be punished.  The gravity of the offence, the impact the  same would have on the other workmen as also the fact as to whether the  same will have an adverse effect over the functioning of the industry are  relevant considerations.           Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (supra) must be understood in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

context in which it was rendered.  Section 11-A of the Act as interpreted by  Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (supra) must be applied at different stages.   Firstly, when the validity or legality of the domestic enquiries is in question;  secondly, in the event, the issue is determined in favour of the Management,  no fresh evidence is required to be adduced by it whereas in the event it is  determined in favour of the workmen, subject to the request which may be  made by the Management in an appropriate stage, it will be permitted to  adduce fresh evidence before the Labour Court. 26.     Indisputably, in the event, fresh evidence is adduced before the  Labour Court by the Management, the Labour Court will have the  jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence.  But, in a case where the materials  brought on record by the Enquiry Officer fall for re-appreciation by the  Labour Court, it should be slow to interfere therewith.  It must come to a  conclusion that the case was a "proper" one therefor.  The Labour Court  shall not interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer only because it is  lawful to do so.  It would not take recourse thereto only because another  view is possible.  Even assuming that, for all intent and purport, the Labour  Court acts as an appellate authority over the judgment of the Enquiry  Officer, it would exercise appropriate restraint.  It must bear in mind that the  Enquiry Officer also acts as a quasi-judicial body.  Before it, parties are not  only entitled to examine their respective witnesses, they can cross-examine  the witnesses examined on behalf of the other side.  They are free to adduce  documentary evidence.  The parties as also the Enquiry Officer can also  summon witnesses to determine the truth.  The Enquiry Officer can call for  even other records.  It must indisputably comply with the basic principles of  natural justice. 27.     While determining the issue as to whether the workman is guilty of  misconduct alleged to have been committed by him or not, the workman  would be entitled to raise all contentions including the contention of lack of  bona fide or unfair labour practice as also acts of victimization on the part of  the Management.  Even evidences in that behalf can be laid.  Save and  except, however, for sufficient and cogent reasons, neither the Enquiry  Officer would arrive at a finding in regard to lack of bona fide or  victimization or unfair labour practice on the part of the management; the  Labour Court while considering the said findings would ordinarily not do so.   Such a question must be appropriately raised.  Materials must be brought on  records to establish the said allegations. 28.     It is one thing to say that the finding of an Enquiry Officer is perverse  or betrays the well-known doctrine of proportionality but it is another thing  to say that only because two views are possible, the Labour Court shall  interfere therewith.  In other words, it is one thing to say that on the basis of  the materials on record, the Labour Court comes to a conclusion that a  verdict of guilt has been arrived at by the Enquiry Officer where the  materials suggested otherwise but it is another thing to say that such a  verdict was also a possible view.           For the aforementioned purpose, certain basic principles must be kept  in mind, viz., even the first appellate court although is entitled to interfere  with the findings of a Trial Court in terms of Section 96 of the Code of Civil  Procedure, ordinarily a finding of fact arrived at on the basis of the oral  evidence by the Trial Court should be accepted.         In Chinthamani Ammal v. Nandagopal Gounder [(2007) 4 SCC 163],  this Court observed: "18. Furthermore, when the learned trial Judge  arrived at a finding on the basis of appreciation of  oral evidence, the first appellate court could have  reversed the same only on assigning sufficient  reasons therefor. Save and except the said  statement of DW 2, the learned Judge did not  consider any other materials brought on record by  the parties. 19. In Madholal Sindhu v. Official Assignee of  Bombay it was observed: (AIR p. 30, para 21) "It is true that a judge of first instance can  never be treated as infalliable in determining on  which side the truth lies and like other tribunals

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

he may go wrong on questions of fact, but on  such matters if the evidence as a whole can  reasonably be regarded as justifying the  conclusion arrived at, the appeal court should  not lightly interfere with the judgment." (See also Madhusudan Das v. Narayanibai.)"

29.     Before a departmental proceeding, the standard of proof is not that the  misconduct must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt but the standard of  proof is as to whether the test of pre-ponderance of probability has been met.   The approach of the Labour Court appeared to be that the standard of proof  on the Management was very high.  When both the parties had adduced  evidence, the Labour Court should have borne in mind that the onus of proof  loses all its significance for all practical purpose. 30.     In Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.,  Haldia and Others [(2005) 7 SCC 764], a Three-Judge Bench of this Court  opined: "\005It is well settled that the burden of proving  mala fide is on the person making the allegations  and the burden is "very heavy". (vide E.P.  Royappa v. State of T.N.) There is every  presumption in favour of the administration that  the power has been exercised bona fide and in  good faith. It is to be remembered that the  allegations of mala fide are often more easily made  than made out and the very seriousness of such  allegations demands proof of a high degree of  credibility."

31.     The Labour Court, on the one hand, has taken into consideration only  some portion of the depositions of the witnesses and not the other portions.   It merely stated that the workmen examined themselves as W.W/1 and  W.W/2.  Even if the finding that there had been a scuffle between the  contractor and the workmen and both shouted against each other, is correct,  the purported inference that the same was mere psychological and natural in  such a situation and nothing untoward had happened is based on no  evidence.  No injury had been caused to anybody.  If the workman was  found to be not only abusing the contractors, even an iron rod had been  taken out so as to threaten Shri Dara Singh with a view to assault him, a  clear case of misconduct had been made out.  It was a matter of utmost importance to determine as to who started  the quarrel; who started using abusive language; who started shouting;  whether the workmen were more sinned against than sinning; whether there  were materials on record to arrive at the findings on the said issue. These  should have been the questions posed by the Labour Court.   

32.     There might have been a power cut for some time but the Labour  Court even did not enter into the question as to whether the workmen were  otherwise instigated to stop work.  Without there being any material on  record, the Labour Court has arrived at a finding that the Management had  taken side in favour of the contractors and against the workmen "probably  because of their demand and trade union activities".  The finding is based on  surmises.  If that be so, the Labour Court should have tried to find out as to  whether the Management’s witnesses were confronted with such questions  and documents in the departmental proceedings or not.  On what basis a  finding was arrived at that the act of Management proves victimization of  the workmen had not been spelt out.   

33.     Assault, intimidation are penal offences.  A workman indulging in  commission of a criminal offence should not be spared only because he  happens to be a Union leader.  The Act does not encourage indiscipline.  It  will be a matter of some concern if the opinion of the Enquiry Officer can be  totally ignored despite the fact that the Management is precluded from  adducing any fresh evidence before the Labour Court.  A Union leader does  not enjoy immunity from being proceeded with in a case of misconduct.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

34.     The upshot of our discussion is that the decision of the Labour Court  should not be based on mere hypothesis.  It cannot overturn a decision of the  Management on ipse dixit.  Its jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act  although is a wide one, must be judiciously exercised.  Judicial discretion, it  is trite, cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously.  It may  scrutinize and analyse the evidence but what is important is how it does so.

35.     It is also of some significance that the co-delinquent workman R.P.  Singh who came to the aid of the impleaded applicant Krishna Kishore  Yadav has accepted the finding of the High Court. 36.     Before us, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, has relied upon a decision of this  Court in Sardar Singh (supra).  We do not find that any legal principle has  been laid down therein.  It was a case of habitual unauthorized absence  which was found to have been proved.   37.     Reliance has also been placed on Tata Engineering and Locomotive  Co. Ltd. (supra) where the question was as to whether on the basis of a relief  granted to one of the workmen a direction for reinstatement with half of the  back wages could be issued.  In the fact of the said case, it was held: "10. We find that the Labour Court has found  the inquiry to be fair and proper. The conduct  highlighted by the management and established in  inquiry was certainly of a very grave nature. The  Labour Court and the High Court have not found  that misconduct was of any minor nature. On the  contrary, the finding on facts that the acts  complained of were established has not been  disturbed. That being so, the leniency shown by  the Labour Court is clearly unwarranted and would  in fact encourage indiscipline. Without indicating  any reason as to why it was felt that the  punishment was disproportionate, the Labour  Court should not have passed the order in the  manner done. The case of R.P. Singh was not on a  similar footing. He was one of the persons  instigating whereas the respondent was the person  who committed the acts. Therefore, the orders of  the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court  cannot be sustained and are set aside. The order of  dismissal from service in the disciplinary  proceedings stand restored."

38.     The said decision again was rendered on its facts and no legal  principle can be culled out therefrom.

39.     We may, however, notice that this Court in North-Eastern Karnataka  RTC v. Ashappa [(2006) 5 SCC 137] opined: "8. Remaining absent for a long time, in our  opinion, cannot be said to be a minor misconduct.  The appellant runs a fleet of buses. It is a statutory  organisation. It has to provide public utility  services. For running the buses, the service of the  conductor is imperative. No employer running a  fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain  absent for a long time. The respondent had been  given opportunities to resume his duties. Despite  such notices, he remained absent. He was found  not only to have remained absent for a period of  more than three years, his leave records were seen  and it was found that he remained unauthorisedly  absent on several occasions. In this view of the  matter, it cannot be said that the misconduct  committed by the respondent herein has to be  treated lightly."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

40.     In Government of India & Anr. v. George Philip [(2006) 12 SCALE  122], overstay of leave and absence from duty was held to be not only an act  of indiscipline but also subversive of the work culture in the organization,  stating:

"\005Article 51A(j) of the Constitution lays down  that it shall be the duty of every citizen to strive  towards excellence in all spheres of individual and  collective activity so that the nation constantly  rises to higher levels of endeavour and  achievement.  This cannot be achieved unless the  employees maintain discipline and devotion to  duty.  Courts should not pass such orders which  instead of achieving the underlying spirit and  objects of Part IV-A of the Constitution has the  tendency to negate or destroy the same."   41.     We, therefore, are of the opinion no case has been made out for  interfering with the ultimate conclusion of the High Court, albeit for  different reasons.

42.     For the reasons aforementioned, the appeals are dismissed.  No costs.