http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4735 of 2006

PETITIONER: Management of Aurofood Pvt. Ltd

RESPONDENT: S.Rajulu

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/04/2008

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4735 OF 2006

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1.      The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under: 2.      The respondent, who was working as a Packer with the  appellant company was put under suspension vide order dated  26th April 1981.  A charge-sheet dated 28th April 1981 was  thereafter      served upon him alleging that on 24th April 1981 he  had been found wasting his time eating biscuits near the store  room and on being questioned by his superior, had answered  insolently and told him that he too was dishonest and that he  was not afraid to face the consequences.  The respondent was  then taken to one Moses, a senior officer, but he continued to  use foul and filthy language and threatened Moses that if he  made a report against him, he would break his legs.  The  respondent was also served a second charge-sheet on          11th August 1981 for another misconduct on the allegation  that on 10th August 1981 he had misbehaved with one Mrs.  Sasireka and used filthy language against her.  A domestic  enquiry was thereafter held against the respondent which  indicted him on both charges.  The management accepted the  findings of the enquiry officer and took a tentative decision to  impose the punishment of dismissal under the Standing  Orders.  A show-cause dated 13th October 1981 (Annexure P- 3) was also issued to him calling upon to show cause as to  why the aforesaid punishment should not be imposed on him.   The respondent furnished his reply which was found  unsatisfactory and vide order dated 5th November 1981 he   was dismissed from service on account of  the gravity of  misconduct and for having used abusive language, vide order  appended as Annexure P-4.  The respondent thereafter raised  an industrial dispute.  The Government declined to refer the  dispute for further adjudication by its order dated 23rd August  1982.  The respondent thereafter moved a representation  before the Government on 1st September 1986 and the matter  was referred to the Labour Court vide order dated 10th August  1987.  The Labour Court rendered its award on 30th March  1993 holding that the disciplinary action initiated against the  respondent was not an act of victimization, that the charges  raised against the respondent stood proved and that the  finding of the enquiry officer was justified ( a copy of the award  has been  appended as Annexure P-5).   The respondent  thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court.  The learned  Single Judge in his judgment and order dated 9th February

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

2001 observed that the misconduct even if held to be proved  really amounted to the use of "unparliamentary language"   and was trivial in nature and as the punishment of dismissal  had shocked "the conscience  of the Court" and as the  punishing authority had without notice to the respondent  workman, taken his antecedents into account,  he directed the  reinstatement of the respondent with full back wages ( a copy  of this order has been appended as Annexure P-7).  An appeal  filed by the appellant-management to the Division Bench was  also dismissed vide order dated 18th April 2005.  The present  appeal has been filed as a consequence thereof. 3.      While issuing notice in this matter on 19th October 2005,  an ad-interim stay was also granted to the appellant.  Mr.  R.Sundravardhan, the learned senior counsel for the appellant  has raised three basic arguments before us in the course of  the hearing \026 (1) the learned Single Judge having found that  the domestic enquiry against the workman was properly  conducted and that the workman indeed was guilty of  misbehaviour, there was no justification in interfering with the  quantum of the punishment in the writ jurisdiction under  Article 226 of the Constitution of India, (2) that the High Court  was wrong in its  finding that the punishing authority was not  justified in taking into account the antecedents of the  workman respondent as he had not been given the  opportunity to rebut these allegations, and (3) very grave  charges had been leveled against the respondent which  included the use of filthy language in the presence of a lady  supervisor and no interference ought to have been  made  in  the writ jurisdiction.  In support of the various pleas raised by  him, Mr. Sundravardhan has relied upon (2005) 3 SCC 134  Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B.Narawade, (2006) 7   SCC 212 State Bank of India & Ors.  v. Ramesh Dinkar  Punde and (1963)  (S) 1 SCR 648 State of Orissa v.  Bidyabhushan Mohapatra. 4.      Mr. S.Guru Krishna Kumar, the learned counsel for the  respondent has, however, supported the judgment of the High  Court and has pointed out that the enquiry conducted against  the respondent was a biased one as the observation of the  enquiry officer that the evidence given by the supervisor was to  be preferred vis-‘-vis the evidence given by respondent  workman was, on the face of it, unacceptable as each piece of  evidence had to be examined as per its merit.  He has  accordingly urged that the observation clearly pointed to the  fact that the respondent had not been given a fair hearing and  in this view of the matter, no interference was called for. 5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and  gone through the record.  The Division Bench has held that  the workman had not been given the requisite material that  was required by him to prepare his defence more particular as  his antecedents had been taken into account depicting him as  incorrigible, though he had not been given any opportunity to  rebut these charges.  The High Court has also found that the  allegations against the workman even if taken to be true were  trivial and could not justify an order of dismissal from service.    The judgments cited by the learned counsel do not adequately  meet the issues raised by the High Court.  The questions of  fact which have been decided by the High Court call for no  interference by this Court under Article 136 of the  Constitution.  We also find that the workman has been out of  employment since the year 1981 and despite succeeding  before the single bench of the High Court on 9th February  2001 he has not yet been reinstated in service because of the  interim order passed in this litigation.  We had accordingly  and at the very outset, suggested to Mr. Sundravardhan that  on account of the situation as now existed, it would, perhaps,

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

be appropriate that the respondent be given a compensation  package rather than an order of reinstatement.  The learned  counsel stated that the management was willing to give no  more than Rs.5,00,000/- towards that package.  The  respondent, on the othe‘r hand who was present in Court,  insisted that he was not interested in the compensation and  would prefer that the orders of the High Court be implemented  in letter and spirit.   We are of the opinion that consequent  upon the bitter relations between the parties and as even the  High Court has found the charges proved though ’trivial’ and  the fact that the respondent has not been on duty with the  appellant-management since the year 1981, it would be  inappropriate to foist a cantankerous and abrasive workman  on it.   We accordingly dismiss the appeal but direct that  instead of reinstatement the respondent would be entitled to  the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation as full and  final settlement with respect to his entire claim.               6. There will be no order as to costs.