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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4856 1999

PETITIONER: HINDUSTAN ALUMINIUM CORPORATION LIMITED

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SATYA NARAIN SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/11/2000

BENCH: S.R.Babu, S.N.Variava

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     J U D G M E N T

     RAJENDRA BABU, J.  :

     On  the  termination  of  the services  of  the  first respondent  on  27.8.1969  by the  appellant  an  industrial dispute  was  raised  by the former which was  referred  for adjudication  to the Labour Court at Gorakhpur.  The  Labour Court  raised preliminary issues and, inter alia, held  that the  inquiry  conducted  by   the  appellant-Management   in relation  to  the  alleged mis-conduct is  valid,  fair  and proper.  An argument was raised before the Labour Court that on  the construction of Standing Orders Nos.  21-H and  21-Z the  inquiry was not competent because the Hindalco hospital where  the  incident in relation to alleged  mis-conduct  of respondent  is  stated to have taken place is away from  the factory  premises  and  so  was  not  committed  within  the premises  of  the industrial establishment and reliance  was placed in support of this contention on Management of S.R.P. Tools  Ltd,  Madras  v.  Presiding Officer  (2),  Additional Labour  Court,  Madras & Ors., 1974 (29) FLR 416, while  the Management  relied  upon  Moolchandani  Electrical  &  Radio Industries Ltd.  v.  Workman, 1974 (30) FLR 1969, a decision of  this  Court.   The Labour Court held that  even  if  the mis-conduct has been committed in Hindalco hospital which is away from the factory premises it cannot be established that the  Standing Orders of the company have been violated  and, therefore,  it  reached  the conclusion  that  the  domestic inquiry  was competent and had been conducted in a fair  and proper  manner.   That  preliminary   order  was  passed  on 21.2.1977.   Thereafter  the  Labour   Court  proceeded   to consider the question of the termination of the workman, the first   respondent  herein,  and  it   was  held  that   the termination of the services of the respondent was not called for  and  the punishment imposed upon him resulting  in  the termination  of his services is not disproportionate to  the charge  alleged  against  him and, therefore,  applying  the scope  of  the provisions of Section 11-A of the  Industrial Disputes  Act the punishment awarded by the employer  should

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

be  set aside particularly because the first respondent went to  the  hospital  to  save the life  of  his  colleague  on humanitarian  grounds.   The  Labour   Court  accepted   the argument  advanced  on behalf of the appellant that  Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act has been inserted in the Industrial  Disputes Act whereas the reference has been made to   the  Labour  Court  under   Section  4-K  of  the  U.P. Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947, which does not  contain  a similar  provision.  On that basis, the Labour Court did not adjudicate  on  that aspect of the matter and merely  stated that  the punishment awarded to the first respondent is  not proved  by the respondent as harsh and disproportionate  and made  an award dismissing the claim of the first respondent. On  a writ petition being filed to the High Court, a learned Single Judge examined the matter and relying upon a decision of  this  Court in Krishna District  Co-operative  Marketing Society  Ltd.   v.  N.V.  Purnachandra Rao & Ors., 1987  (4) SCC  99, wherein the question was as to whether Section 25-F of the Central Act would be applicable to a proceeding under the  U.P.   Act,  it was held by this Court that  a  special provision  of  the  Central Act would apply and  rights  and liabilities  created  under the Central Act would  over-ride those  created  by the State Act in terms of Article 254  of the Constitution, particularly keeping in view the fact that the  Central  Act has been enacted by Parliament  after  the enactment  of the State Act and both of which have  received the  assent  of the President.  It is not necessary for  us, particularly  in  the  light of the order made by  the  High Court, to examine this aspect of the matter and we keep this question open to be decided, if necessary, at a later stage. At  this  stage, it is suffice to say that the  matter  will have  to  be  examined  in the light of  the  provisions  of Section  11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, as directed by the High Court.

     As  regards the findings recorded by the Labour  Court that  the punishment imposed on the first respondent is  not disproportionate  to  the charge levelled against  him,  the learned  Single Judge of the High Court, after referring  to certain  decisions,  directed that in view of the  incidents alleged were out side the factory premises, a finding has to be reached applying Section 11-A of the Central Act.  In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge set aside the award, remitted the matter to the Labour Court for a fresh decision in  accordance  with  law and gave certain  time  frame  for disposal.

     Considering  the nature of the order made by the  High Court   which  merely  remits  the   matter  for   a   fresh consideration  by the Labour Court and at this stage of  the proceeding it is not necessary to decide either the question of  law  or fact arising in the case, we think, there is  no justification  to interfere with the order made by the  High Court.   We keep open the questions arising in the case  for consideration  at a later stage as and when they may  become necessary.

     The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.