Supreme Court of India
JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARIversusDIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA, STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JALGAON DIVISION, JALGAON
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 1105
- Decided
- 6 December 2016
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- KURIAN JOSEPH
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court correctly set aside the dismissal as unjustified and that the appellant is entitled to gratuity, rendering the High Court's modification unsustainable.
Summary
The appellant, a bus conductor, was dismissed after a domestic inquiry found him guilty of collecting fare without issuing tickets. The Labour Court set aside the dismissal, holding the inquiry was perverse and violated natural justice, and awarded back wages (50% due to superannuation) and other benefits but denied gratuity. The High Court modified this award, granting only a one‑time compensation equal to 50% of back wages and refusing gratuity on the ground of moral turpitude. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the High Court erred in its procedural view, affirmed that the Labour Court was correct in finding the termination unjustified, and restored the Labour Court's award, including gratuity. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to gratuity for continuous service up to superannuation and the High Court’s modification is set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental enquiry was perverse, unfair, and violative of natural justice.
- Whether the termination of service was illegal under the law.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to reinstatement, back wages, and gratuity.
- Whether gratuity can be denied on the basis of alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude.
- Whether the Labour Court erred in deciding preliminary and substantive issues together.
Subjects
terminationmisconductdomestic inquirynatural justicegratuityback wagesperverse findingsindustrial disputeLabour Courtcompensationmoral turpitude
Judgment
[2016] II S.C.R.219
JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI A
v.
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA, STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JALGAON DIVISION,
JALGAON
B
(Civil Appeal No. 11807of2016)
DECEMBER 06, 2016
(KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. }'. NARIMAN, JJ.)
Service Lmv:
c
Termination - On charges of misconduct - Chal/e1 1ge to -
Back wages - Gratuity - Allegation that while working as a bus
conductor. appellant had collected fare from six passengers, without
issuii1g tickets - Inquiry officer found him guilty - He was terminated
from service - Labour court set aside the order of dismissal -
However, as appellant had already crossed the age of D
siperannuation, instead of reinstatemellt, 50% of the back wages
from date of termination till the date of superannuation with all
other service benefits were gramed by the Labour court - High
Court modified the m1,ard by graming one time compensation of an
amount equivalent to 50% of the back wages as awarded by Labour E
court but did not grant gratuity - On appeal, held: Labour court,
on available materials on record, found that the termination was
unjustified on basis of perverse finding entered by the inquiry
officer - Despite grant of opportunity, 110 evidence was adduced
by the 111anageme111 to establish othen1•ise - Therefore, Labour court
cannot be faulted for answering the reference in favour of the F
appellant - High Court itself gramed compensation as it felt that
the termination was unjustified and reinstatement was not
possible - Appellant entitled to gratuity in respect of his co111inuous
service from his original appoi11tme11t till the date of his
superannuation - Judgment of High Court not sustainable and G
award of Labour court restored
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On facts, it is clear that the High Court has gone
wrong in holding that the Labour Court did not follow the
procedure. It is seen from the award that the management had H
219
/
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20161 11 S.C.R.
A not sought for an opportunity for leading evidence. And despite
granting an opportunity, 110 evidence was adduced after the Labour
Court held that the findings of the inquiry officer were perverse.
Therefore, the Labour Court cannot be faulted for answering the
Reference in favour of the a1ipellant. [Para 14] (226-A-B)
B 2. The Labour Court, on the available materials on record,
found that the termination was unjustified on the basis of a
perverse finding entered by the inquiry officer. There was no
attem11t on the part of the management before the Labour Court
to establish othenvise. [Para 15] [226-B-C]
c 3 .. It appears that the High Court itself has granted
compensation since the Court felt that the termination was
unjustified and since reinstatement was not possible on account
of superannuation. In case, the High Court was of the view that
termination was justified, it could not have ordered for payment
of any compensation. [Para 16] [226-C-DJ
D
4. In order to deny gratuity to an employee, it is not enough
that the alleged misconduct of the employee constitutes an offence
involving moral turpitude as per the report of the domestic inquiry.
There must be termination on account of the alleged misconduct,
which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude.
E Consequently, tlae appellant shall be entitled to gratuity in rc'!pect
of his continuous service from his original appointment till the
date of his superannuation. (Paras 17, 18] (226-D-F)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11807
of2016.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.07.2015 of the High Court
9f Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.
3268of2014.
Uday B. Dube, Adv. for the Appellants.
G R. S. Hegde, Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, Chandra Prakash, Rajeev
Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, aggrieved by the termination from service, iaised
an industrial dispute leading to the award in Refererice'IDA No. 42 of
1-1
JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI v. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER 221
MAHARASHTRA. SRTC, JALGAON DIVISION, JALGAON (KURIAN, J.]
2007 dated 20.06.2013 of the Labour Court, Jalgaon, Maharashtra. The A
Labour Court set aside the dismissal order dated 26.08.2002. However,
noticing that the appellant had already crossed the date of superannuation,
viz., 31.05.2005, it was ordered that from the date of termination to the
date of superannuation, the appellant would be entitled to all service
benerits except back wages which were limited to 50 per cent.
B
3. The respondent challenged the award before the High Court of
Bombay. As per the impugned judgment dated 08.07.2015 in Wri'< Petition
No. 3268of2014. the award was modified by granting only a one-time
compensation of an amount equivalent to 50 per cent of the back wages
as awarded by the Labour Court. Thus aggrieved, the appellant is before
this Court. c
4. The charg<: against t:1,· appellant was that he had collected fare
from six passengers while he was \\ 0rking as a conductor on 06.09.2001
in bus No. MH-20/J-4714 011 its trip from Chalisgaon to Patanagaon,
without issuing tickets. The inspecting team also found that there was a
shortage of cash in his cash bag. A domestic inquiry followed and the D
inquiry officer found the appellant guilty, and on that basis, he was
tenninated from service.
5. Before the Labour Court, four issues were framed:
"l. Does the second party prove that the departmenta! enquiry E
held against him is unjust, unfair, improper and against the
principles of natural justice, and the findings of Enquiry
Officer are perverse?
2. Does the second party prove that, the termination of his
service is illegal, violating the provisions oflaw?
F
3. Whether the second party is entitled for the relief iis sought
. for?
4. What order?"
6. The Labour Coui1 found that:
G
" ... As the alleged passengers have not been examined, an
opportunity of cross examining them is not availed to the second
party. The one and the same authority has issued charge sheet,
conducted enquiry and suggested the punishment. Accordingly,
serious prejudice is caused to the second party. One and the
H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] II S.C.R.
A same authority is not expected to play the role of Enquiry Officer
and disciplinary authority, which is inconsistent to the provisions
of law. Accordingly, with biased mind enquiry has been
conducted. Despite of not examining the witnesses the enquiry
officer considered their statements recorded on the spot and
concluded that, charges of misconduct have been proved against
B
the second party. Besides th is, the reporter has not stated before
the Enquiry Officer in tem1s of his report. Accordingly, the enquiry
officer has recorded his findings on the basis ofno evidence and
therefore, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer appears
to be perverse one . .- .. "
c 7. On issue no.2, it was noted that:
" ... in the light of findings on issue no. I that, the enquiry held
against the Complainant was fair, proper and legal and the findings
of enquiry officer are perverse, then it is for first party to prove
the alleged charges of misconduct before this court. It is pertinent
D to note that, in their written statement the first party has not
made prayer that, if the court arrived at the conclusion that the
enquiry held against the Complainant was not fair, proper and
legal and the findings of enquiry officer are perverse, then they
may be permitted to prove the misconduct of second party before
E this court by leading evidence. But, they failed to do so. No
witness is examined by the first party. Hence, the alleged
misconduct of second party has not been proved before this
court."
8. Still further, the Labour Court proceeded further and found
F that:
"14. In a case before me, testified evidence of second party at
Exh. U-8 & U-13 reflect that, he was working with first party as
a bus conducted since 05.04.1971 at Chopda Depot. Thereafter
he was transferred to Amalner Depot and Chalisgaon Depot.
G However, without considering his meritorious clean and
unblemished service record, first patiy has dismissed him from
service vide order dated 26.08.2002. On 06.09.200 I when he
was performing his duties as a conductor on bus no. MH-20/J-
4714 which is proceeding from Chalisgaon to Patanagaon, at
that time his bus was checked by Inspecting squad at Balziri
H Phata and it is alleged against him that 6 passengers were found
--<.,.. +
JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI v. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER 223
MAHARASHTRA, SRTC, JALGAON DIVISION, JALGAON [KURIAN, J.]
travelling in the said bus without tickets, though fare amount A
was paid by them to the second party-conductor. Those 6 persons
were illiterate persons and inspecting squad as per their whims
recorded their statements, as well as S.T. cash was found less
by Rs.56. Had the second party actually recovered the amount
from the very six passengers, then Rs.36/- ought to have been
B
found excess in his cash bag. However, contrary to this, amount
was found less with the second party and hence Respondent by
making false allegations issued false charge sheet, conducted
enquiry. Principles of natural justice have not been observed by
the first party. The alleged passengers have not been examined
and an opportunity of cross examining to them is not availed to c
the second party. The one and the same authority has issued
charge sheet, conducted enquiry and suggested the punishment.
Accordingly, serious prejudice is caused to the second paiiy.
Accordingly, with bias mind enquiry has been conducteC:. Instead
of examining the witnesses the enquiry officer considered their
D
statements recorded on the spot and concluded that, charges of
misconduct have been proved against the second party. Besides
this, the reporter has not stated before Enquiry Officer in terms
of his report. Report is not exhibited and duly proved before the
Enquiry Officer, even though enquiry officer relied on it and
concluded that, alleged misconducts have been proved against E
the second party. Thus, by violating the principles of natural justice,
enquiry has been conducted and the findings drawn by the enquiry
officer are perverse. On the basis of said report punishment of
dismissal has been imposed which is extremely harsh and
disproportionate. This oral testimony of the second party has not
F
been shattered during cross examination.
15. After cross-examining the second party, the Respondent
has an opportunity to lead evidence in support of the chargers
levelled against the Complainant. Once. findings of the enquiry
officer are held perverse by this court, then burden lies on
Respondent to prove the misconduct by leading evidence before G
this court. But, instead ofleading evidence in support of alleged
misconduct of the second party, first party did not lead any oral
evidence before this court, on the contrary filed pursis of closing
their evidence at Exh. C-20. Therefore, it is crystal clear that,
the misconduct of the second party is not proved before this H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 11 S.C.R.
A Court by the first party. Therefore, it can safe_!,y be inferred that,
the charges levelled against the second party are false and the
said charge sheet was issued with an intention to victimize l1im,
As the charges levelled against the second party are not proved
either in the departmental enquiry or before this court, hence,
the dismissal order issued by the first party is nothing but in
B
colourable exercise of employer's right, by falsely implicating
the Complainant in a criminal case on false evidence, for patently
false reasons, in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice
in the conduct of domestic enquiry and with undue haste,
amounting to unfair labour practice. Hence, I hold that the
c dismissal of second party is illegal, violating the provisicns of
law."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. On issue no.3, it was held as follows:
D "17. As to issue no.3:- So far as relief sought by the s~cond
party is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for second party has
submitted that, the second party has attained the age ofretircment
on 31.05.2005 hence he may be given all the retiral benefits
from the date of his illegal dismissal. It is pertinent to note that, in
his statement of claim the second party has stated that, he will
E be going to retire from service on 31.05.2005. It means, already
the second party has attained the age of retirement in the year
2005. Once his termination is held as illegal, second paity is
entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and. back
wages. However, the second party has attained the age of
F superannuation i.e. 58 years on 31.05.2005. Accordingly, had he
been in service then he would have been retired on 31.05.2005.
The charges levelled in the charge sheet are not proved in enquiry
or before this Cou11, therefore, second party is entitled for all the
benefits, as ifhe was in employment of the first pmty-corporation.
Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for second patty argued that, despite
G directing reinstatement of the second party, the first party be
directed to avail him all the monetary benefits till his
superannuation and dues admissible as per rules. Considering all
these aspects of attaining the age of superannuation by the second
paity, it wi 11 be proper to mould the relief as sought by him to the
H extent of availing him all the monetary benefit till his
JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI v. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER 225
MAHARASHTRA, SRTC. JALGAON DIVISION, JALGAON [KURIAN, J.)
superannuation, which are admissible as per law. Once, it is held A
that, the findings of enquiry officer are perverse and first party
has illegally dismissed him from service, therefore, certainly the
second party is entitled for the relief. ... ".
I 0. Thus, the Reference was answered in favour of the &ppellant
setting aside the dismissal order. However, taking note of the fact that B
the appellant had cro~,cd the age of superannuation. instead of
reinstatement, 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of termination
till the date of superannuation with all other service benefits were granted.
11. The High Court, in the impugned order, took the view that the
Labour Court went wrong in deciding the preliminary issue concerning c
the fairness of the inquiry and deciding all further issues in one stroke.
To quote the relevant consideration which appears at paragraph-12 of
the impugned judgment: ·
"12. It is apparent that the Labour Court has erred in deciding
the preliminary issues concerning the fairness of the enquiry and D
the findings of the enquiry officer along with all the issues while
delivering the impugned judgment. The procedure laid down in
law, which has been considered by this Court and followed in
the case of Maharashtra State Roadways Transport Corporation,
Beed Vs. Syed Saheblal Syed Nijam [2014 Ill CLR 547], has
not been followed by the Labour Court. It could not have decided E
the preliminary issues along with all the rest of the issues in one
stroke while delivering the impugned award. For this reason alone,
the impugned award is rendered unsustainable."
12. In that view of the matter, it was held that the appellant would
not be entitled to the gratuity but a one-time compensation ofar. amount F
equivalent to 50 per cent of the back wages, would be just and proper.
To quote the relief portion:
"17. This Writ Petition is, therefore, partly allowed. The impugned
award is modified by setting aside clause I and 2 of the order
and by granting the 50% of the backwages as awardiod by the G
Labour Court from 26.08.2002 till 31.05.2005 as quantified
compensation. The Respondent shall be deprived of gratuity
amount since the charge proved against him in the enquiry
involves moral turpitude."
13. Heard Learned Counsel appearing on both sides. H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f20161 11 S.C.R.
A 14. On facts, it clearthatthe High Court has gone wrong in holding
that the Labour Court did not follow the procedure. It is seen fro;n the
award that the management had not sought for an opportunity for leading
evidence. And despite granting an opportunity, no evidence was adduced
after the Labour Court held that the findings of the inquiry officer were
perverse. Therefore, the Labour Court cannot be faulted for answering
B
the Reference in favour of the appellant.
15. The Labour Court, on the available materials on record, found
that the termination was unjustified on the basis of a perverse finding
entered by the inquiry officer. There was no attempt on the part of the
management before the Labour Com1 to establish otherwise.
c
16. It appears that the High Court itself has granted compensation
since the Court felt that the termination was unjustified and since
reinstatement was not possible on account of superannuation. In case,
the High Court was of the view that termination was justified, it could
not have ordered for payment of any compensation.
D
17. In order to deny gratuity to an employee, it is not enoug:1 that
the alleged misconduct of the employee constitutes an offence involving
moral turpitude as per the report of the domestic inquiry. There must be
termination on account of the alleged misconduct, which constitutes an
offence involving moral turpitude.
E
18. Thus, viewed from any angle, the judgment of the High Court
cannot be sustained. It is hence set aside. The appeal is allowed. The
award dated 20.06.2013 of the Labour Court, Jalgaon, Maharashtra in
Reference IDA No. 42 of2007 is restored. Consequently, the appellant
shall be entitled to gratuity in respect of his continuous service from his
F original appointment till the date of his superannuation.
19. There shall be no orders as to costs.
Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "termination"Sign in to search