Holding

An ex‑parte disciplinary enquiry is not per se violative of natural justice where the employee, having been duly served notice, willfully fails to cooperate; consequently the reinstatement stands but the award of back wages is set aside.

Summary

Rawel Singh, a driver with Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, was absent from duty without sanctioned leave. After notice and a charge sheet, a disciplinary enquiry was held ex parte because he failed to appear, leading to his termination. He obtained reinstatement from civil courts, which allowed the corporation to conduct a fresh enquiry; another ex‑parte enquiry again resulted in dismissal. The Labour Court, invoking Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, awarded reinstatement with back wages, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the ex‑parte enquiry did not breach natural justice as the employee voluntarily refused to cooperate, so reinstatement was upheld, but the award of back wages with interest was set aside. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether an ex‑parte disciplinary enquiry, conducted after proper notice, violates the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Whether the Labour Court was justified in exercising power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to award reinstatement and back wages.
Whether the award of back wages with interest should be upheld or set aside.
Whether the reinstatement order should be disturbed on the ground of procedural irregularity.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 11A

Subjects

unauthorised absencedisciplinary enquirynatural justiceex parte proceedingsreinstatementback wagesIndustrial Disputes ActSection 11Alabour lawdisciplinary proceedings

Judgment

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 652

A PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP.
." I·
~

v.
RAWEL SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 1664 of
2008)

B
FEBRUARY 29, 2008
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ]
•
-
....
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.11A - Dismissal -
Unauthorised absence of workman from duty - Challenge to,
c on the ground that enquiry was unfair - Reinstatement with
back wages by courts below - On appeal held: Enquiry could
not be said to be contrary to law or in violation of principles of
natural justice and fair play - It is not a case of not extending
opportunity to employee but not availing of opportunity by
employee - It was the duty of workman to co-operate with the
D
enquiry and participate in disciplinary proceedings but he >- •
failed to do so - Thus, Labour court erred in holding that
enquiry was violative of natural justice - However, it rightly
recorded the finding that dismissal of workman on the ground
of absence for few days was grossly disproportionate and
E excessively high - Therefore, order of reinstatement calls for
no interference, however, award of back wages set aside.
The respondent-workman remained absent from duty
for few days without sanction of leave. He was served
F with a notice but he did not join duty. Charge sheet was
issued. Enquiry was instituted. Respondent did not
appear before the Enquiry Officer though he was aware
of the same. Enquiry was held ex parte and the Enquiry
Officer proved the charges. Respondent submitted his
reply but did not remain present. The Disciplinary
G
Authority passed termination order of workman.
Respondent filed a suit challenging the termination order.
Trial court set aside the termination order since it was ~ •
violative of the principles of natural justice and passed

H 652
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. RAWEL SINGH 653

"' l'
•
the order of reinstatement. It granted liberty to the A
Corporation to hold fresh inquiry on the same charges.
Appellate Court upheld the order and the respondent was
reinstated with all the benefits. Subsequently, fresh inquiry
was instituted. Respondent was issued notice but he did
not participate in the enquiry and the enquiry was held B
ex-parte. Respondent also did not co-operate with the
~
.. second enquiry and it was proceeded ex-pa rte. Thereafter,
respondent was dismissed from service. Respondent-
workman raised a Reference. The Labour Court passed
an award in favour of respondent. High Court upheld the c
award. Hence the present appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. It is true that the respondent-workman
approached Civil Court against the termination order and D
.. ~ the suit filed by him came to be allowed and the decree
was confirmed in appeal. But it is equally true that liberty
was granted to the Corporation to initiate proceedings
afresh on the same charges and hence initiation of
proceedings could not be said to be illegal or contrary to
E
law. From the record, it is clear that notice was issued to
the respondent and it was received by him, he filed his
reply, he also appeared before the Enquiry Officer but
subsequently he did not remain present and absented
' himself. If, in the light of the above facts, Enquiry Officer
was obliged to proceed with the enquiry ex parte, it could F
not be said that by doing so, the Enquiry Officer had
committed an error either of fact or of law and the
enquiry proceedings were liable to be quashed. [Para 12]
[659-F-H; 660-A]
G
1.2 With regard to supply of documents, record
reveals that the documents had been supplied to the
'~ workman and the said fact had been admitted by him. His
case, however, was that due to heavy rain, all the
documents were destroyed 'which necessitated supply H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A of fresh documents. But as observed by the Enquiry
~
• .
Officer, the workman was asked as to whether he required
any document but the workman replied in the negative.
He could have continued to appear before. the Enquiry
Officer, got the documents, if he wanted, and participated
B in the enquiry. However, he deliberately did not do so.
lnspite of service of show cause notice, the respondent
failed to appear at the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer had • .,_
to proceed with the enquiry in absence of the respondent.
[Para.13] [660-A-E]
c 1.3. The charge as to unauthorized absence of the
respondent is duly established from the record. All the
charges can be said to have been proved against the
respondent. The Labour Court was wholly wrong in
holding that enquiry was not fair. It is not a case of not
D extending an opportunity to the employee but not availing
of opportunity by the employee. Therefore, the finding . ;.
recorded by the Labour Court that the enquiry was vitiated
being violative of natural justice and fair play is based on
'no evidence' and must be set aside. [Para 14] [660-E-H]
E 1.4. It is clear that the respondent- workman remained
absent for few days unauthorisedly without his leave
being sanctioned. Charges were consequential even
according to the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer
to the effect that he failed to take interest in work and he
F did not obey the Rules framed by the Corporation. In the
light of the above 'misconduct', the Labour Court thought
that it was a fit case to invoke Section 11A of the Act. The
High Court also, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction
did not interfere with that part of the order. This Court
G·while exercising power under Article 136 of the
Constitution may not interfere with that part of the order.
The dismissal of workman on the ground of absence for
few days, according to the Labour Court, was grossly
disproportionate and excessively high. The Labour Court
~ .
H had not committed error of law in recording such finding.
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. RAWEL SINGH 655

Therefore, reinstatement granted to the respondent- A
workman, needs no interference. [Para 15] [661-A, B, C, D]
1.5. The enquiry could not be said to be contrary to
law or in violation of principles of natural justice and fair
play. It was the duty of the respondent-workman to
cooperate with such enquiry and participate in B
disciplinary proceedings. The workman failed to do so.
In the circumstances, Corporation should not be asked
to pay back wages to the workman. Had the respondent
remained present at the enquiry proceedings, an
appropriate order could have been passed by Enquiry C
Officer after considering his case and after hearing him.
There was default and failure on the part of the workman
himself which resulted in the situation which has arisen.
Thus, the Labour Court was not right in awarding back
wages with interest thereon. Therefore, to that extent, the D
..... ....
_
order could not be said to be in consonance with law. The
High Court, in upholding the said award and confirming
the direction, committed the same error. Therefore, that
part of the direction is set aside. The award passed by
the Labour Court and confirmed by the High Court so far E
as reinstatement of the respondent-workman is not
disturbed. The respondent-workman would be treated in
continuous service. He will also be entitled to
consequential benefits on setting aside of dismissal order.
[Paras 16 and 17] [661-E-H; 662-A-C] F
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1664
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2006 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil G
Writ Petition No. 11570 of 2006.
K.K. Mohan for the Appellant.
' ~.
Rakesh K. Khanna, A.K. Pandey, Sunita Singh, Shefali
Jain, K.D. Prasad, Ranjana Narayan and Rajesh Prasad Singh H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A for the Respondent. , • ""
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against an award passed by the
B Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Jallandhur on January 31,
2006 in Reference No. 608 of 2000 and confirmed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana on November 10, 2006 in Civil • ...
Writ Petition No.11570 of 2006.

c 3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the
respondent-workman was serving as a Driver with the Pepsu
Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation' for short). On
September 8, 1988, the respondent sent a leave application
from his home-town seeking leave upto September 30, 1988

.
on medical ground. On expiry of the leave period, however, he
D
did not join duties. A report was submitted by the Depot Manager
~
to the Corporation and a notice was issued to the workman on
December 5, 1988 seeking his explanation as to absence from
duty. He was also asked to report within ten days. Though the
said notice was duly served, the respondent failed to join duty.
E A charge sheet was, therefore, issued against the responde~t
wherein three allegations were levelled against him (i) knowingly
and intentionally remaining absent without sanction of leave and
without sending leave application, (ii) failure to take interest in
work and (iii) disobedience of Rules of Corporation.
F
4. A reply was filed by the respondent denying allegations
levelled against him and praying for withdrawal of notice. J.he
Corporation was not satisfied with the explanation. An enquiry
was instituted against the workman. Though the respondent was
fully aware and had knowledge of date of hearing, he failed to
G
appear before the Enquiry Officer and the enquiry was held ex
parte. On the basis of evidence led by management, a finding
was recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled
against the respondent-workman were proved. After the receipt
.'
of Enquiry Officer's report again show cause notice was issued
H
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. RAWEL SINGH 657
[C.K. THAKKER, J.)
""
•l
to the respondent on June 20, 1989 and he was asked to submit A
his representation within fifteen days. He was also asked to
remain present, if he wanted personal hearing, but the
respondent failed to remain present.
5. Considering the reply submitted by the respondent, the
Disciplinary Authority passed an order of termination of services B
of the workman on July 13, 1989.
4
..
6. Being aggrieved by the order of termination, the
respondent instituted a suit in the Court of Sub-Judge Kapurthala.
It was contended by him that the order of termination was illegal, c
cryptic, unfair and contrary to the principles of natural justice
and fair play. Though the Corporation filed written statement,
contested the matter and denied all the averments made and
allegations levelled against the Corporation, the trial court, on
June 3, 1993 decreed the suit holding that the order was not
D
. - sustainable as it was violative of principles of natural justice as
also inconsistent with the provisions of Service Rules of the
Corporation. The Court, therefore, granted reinstatement of the
plaintiff-employee granting liberty to the Corporation to hold fresh
enquiry on the same charges. The Corporation preferred an
appeal against the decree passed by the trial court but the E
appellate court confirmed the decree. The matter came to an
end there; the workman was reinstated in service and granted
all the benefits to which he was held entitled under the decree.
- ,.. 7. In the light of the observations made and liberty granted F
" by the Court, fresh enquiry was instituted against the respondent.
A show cause notice was issued which was duly received by
the respondent but he did not participate in the enquiry. Enquiry
was, therefore, proceeded ex parte. According to the
Corporation, it was the modus operandi of the workman not to
G
remain present at the enquiry as he was working with private
bus operators and thereafter to challenge ex parte orders. In
.,. ~ the second enquiry also, he did not cooperate. He contended
that he had not received necessary documents. He did not join
the proceedings, remained absent and allowed the enquiry to
H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A proceed ex parte. Finally, he was dismissed from service. Being
.., • ..
aggrieved by the said action, he raised an Industrial Dispute
and a reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The
Labour Court, Jallandhar, as stated above passed an award in
B favour of the workman on January 31, 2006 which was confirmed
by the High Court against which the present appeal is filed by
the Corporation. ~
~'

8. Notice was issued by this Court on February 23, 2007
and ad interim stay was also granted. The matter was thereafter
c ordered to be placed for hearing and that is how the matter is
before us.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant -Corporation
D contended that the Labour Court as well as the High Court have
committed an error of law and of jurisdiction in passing the award ~ .
in favour of the respondent-workman. It was submitted that the
charges levelled against the respondent were proved. Though
opportunity of hearing had been afforded to.the respondent, he
E did not avail of such opportunity and it could not be said that the
enquiry was improper or unfair. So far as documents are
concerned, it was submitted that tbe documents had already
been supplied to the respondent and he had admitted the said
fact. According to the report of the Enquiry Officer, all the three r

F charges levelled against the respondent were proved. If, in the
light of the above report, the respondent was dismissed from '
service, it could not be said that no such order could have been
passed and it was liable to be set aside. The Labour Court was
wrong in holding that enquiry was not in consonance with law. It
was also wrong to exercise power under Section 11 A of the Act
G
and to grant reinstatement. Serious grievance was made by
the learned counsel against the direction to pay back wages. It
was submitted that even if the Labour Court was satisfied that it , ~

was a fit case to exercise power under Section 11 A of the Act,
on the facts and in circumstances of the case, it could not have
H
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. RAWEL SINGH 659
[C.K. THAKKER, J.)

awarded full back wages with interest@ 6%. This is particularly A
in view the consistent conduct of the respondent-workman in
not cooperating with the disciplinary proceedings. It was,
therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed by
setting aside the award passed by the Labour Court and
confirmed by the High Court. B

11. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
supported the orders. It was contended that the Labour Court,
recorded a finding of fact that principles of natural justice had
not been observed and hence enquiry could not be said to be
fair and in consonance with law. The Labour Court was also C
right in exercising power under Section 11A of the Act and no
fault can be found against such action. The High Court in exercise
of supervisory jurisdiction did not think it proper to interfere with
the award and this Court may not exercise discretionary and
equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The D
counsel, therefore, submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances in their entirety, in our
opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. As already
observed by us, even at an earlier occasion, when allegations E
were levelled against the respondent-workman, notice was
issued and enquiry was instituted, he did not make himself
available and the Enquiry Officer was constrained to proceed
,... with the enquiry ex parte and an order of termination of services
was passed. True it is that the respondent-workman approached F
Civil Court and the suit filed by him came to be allowed and the
decree was confirmed in appeal. But it is equally true that liberty
was granted to the Corporation to initiate proceedings afresh
on the same charges and hence initiation of proceedings could
not be said to be illegal or contrary to law. from the record, it is G
clear that notice was issued to the respondent and it was
received by him, he filed his reply, he also appeared before the
' ~ Enquiry Officer but subsequently he did not remain present and
absented himself. If, in the light of the above facts, Enquiry Officer
was obliged to proceed with the ·enquiry ex parte, it could not H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

A be said that by doing so, the Enquiry Officer had committed an '
~
.
error either of fact or of law and the enquiry proceedings were
liable to be quashed.

13. With regard to supply of documents, record reveals
that the documents had been supplied to the workman and the
8 said fact had been admitted by him. His case, however, was
that due to heavy rain, all the documents were destroyed which
necessitated supply of fresh documents. But as observed by •
the Enquiry Officer, the workman was asked as to whether he
required any document but the workman replied in the negative.
C In our opinion, he could have continued to appear before the
Enquiry Officer, got the documents, if he wanted, and
participated in the enquiry. He, however, deliberately did not do
so. It is alleged by the Corporation that the respondent
intentionally remained absent as he was working with private
D bus operators and wanted to take a chance if enquiry
proceedings are quashed and set aside on the plea of violation • _.
of principles of natural justice. We are not entering into
correctness or otherwise of the allegations of the Corporation.
One thing, however, is certain that in spite of service of show
E cause notice, the respondent failed to appear at the enquiry
and the Enquiry Officer had to proceed with the enquiry in
absence of the respondent.
14. Apart from that it is also clear from the record that so
far as the charge as to unauthorized absence of the respondent ~
F is concerned, the same is duly established from the record. The
Enquiry Officer, in our opinion, rightly observed that charges (ii)
and (iii) were consequential in nature and based on charge (i)
and hence all the charges can be said to have been proved
against the respondent. In our judgment, the Labour Court was
G wholly wrong in holding that enquiry was not fair. To us, it is not a
case of not extending an opportunity to the employee but not
availing of opportunity by the employee. Therefore, the finding
recorded by the Labour Court that the enquiry was vitiated being , f
violative of natural justice and fair play is based on 'no evidence'
H and must be set aside.
PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. v. RAWEL SINGH 661
[C.K. THAKKER, J.]
~
.. 1
15. But as far as the second question is concerned, the A
Labour Court exercised power under Section 11 A of the Act.
Taking allegations of the appellant Corporation on face value, it
is clear that the respondent- workman remained absent for few
days unauthorisedly without his leave being sanctioned.
Charges (ii) and (iii) were consequential even according to the B
finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer to the effect that he failed

-f
. to take interest in work and he did not obey the Rules framed by
the Corporation. In the light of the above 'misconduct', the Labour
Court thought that it was a fit case to invoke Section 11 A of the
Act. The High Court also, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction c
did not interfere with that part of the order. In our considered
opinion, submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-
workman is well-founded that this Court while exercising power
under Article 136 of the Constitution may not interfere with that
part of the order. The dismissal of workman on the ground of
D
absence for few days, according to the Labour Court, was
" -<! grossly disproportionate and excessively high. In our judgment,
the Labour Court had not committed error of law in recording
such finding. Reinstatement granted to the respondent-
workman,. therefore, needs no interference.
E
16. The question then remains with regard to consequential
benefits and payment of back wages. Once we hold, and we
have already held, that the enquiry could not be said to be
contrary to law or in violation of principles of natural justice and
.... J
fair play, it was the duty of the respondent-workman to cooperate F
with such enquiry and participate in disciplinary proceedings.
The workmaniailed to do so. In the circumstances, in our opinion,
Corporation should not be asked to pay back wags to the
workman. Had the respondent remained present at the enquiry
proceedings, an appropriate order could have been passed by
G
Enquiry Officer after considering his case and after hearing him.
There was thus default and failure on the part of the workman
himself which resulted in the situation which has arisen. In view
' .. of this, in our view, the Labour Court was not right in awarding
back wages with interest thereon. To that extent, therefore, the
H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.

~ •..
A order could not be said to be in consonance with law. The High
Court, in upholding the said award and confirming the direction,
committed the same error. That part of the direction, therefore,
is required to be set aside.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed.
B The award passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by the
High Court so far as reinstatement of the respondent-workman
4
is concerned, is not disturbed. But the direction issued by the t-
Labour Court to the appellant- Corporation to pay back wages
to the respondent workman with interest thereon as confirmed
c by the High Court is hereby set aside. The respondent-workman
will be treated in continuous service. He will also be entitled to
consequential benefits on setting aside of dismissal order but
he is held not entitled to back wages for the period for which he
has not worked.
D
18. Ordered accordingly.
. ...
N.J. Appeal partly allowed.

....

. "(