Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Narain Singh vs State Of Punjab . on 9 July, 2014
4I ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.6 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SLP(C) No(s). 23756/2011
RAM NARAIN SINGH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and
prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date : 09/07/2014 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale ,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal stands disposed with no costs in terms of the signed order.
(Neeta) (Usha Sharma) Sr. P.A. Court Master (Signed order is placed on the file) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neeta Sapra Date: 2014.08.07 18:15:11 IST Reason: IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6243 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.23756/2011) RAM NARAIN SINGH Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
This appeal has been preferred by appellant against the judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2011 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1301 of 2010. By the impugned judgment, the High Court observed as follows:
"In view of the above and taking into account the limited jurisdiction that the Court would exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are of the view that the contentions advanced at the admission hearing do not make out a case for admission of this appeal. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge is accordingly affirmed."
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant was a workman with respondent No.3- M/s Alpha Drugs India Limited (now Punjab Chemicals and Crop Protection Limited). Respondent No.3 sought permission under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking permission from the competent authority to retrench certain employees including the appellant w.e.f. 26 th August, 2000. The appellant was served with notice of -2- retrenchment dated 26th May 2000 whereby it was informed that due to heavy recession in trade, fall in business, fierce competition and also for economic reasons it has been decided to close down PGCH & DANOXI plants.
The Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab after hearing the employer and the Union of Workmen granted permission to retrench the appellant by order dated 27th August, 2000. The Additional Labour Commissioner in the said order observed as follows:
"a. A perusal of Section 25-G of the Act reveals that the principle of last come, first go, has to be applied where other things are equal. In the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred to by the management, their Lordships have clearly observed that if the employer is satisfied that a person with a long service is in efficient, reliable and regular though they may be junior in service to the retrenched workman. In the case of Sh. Ram Narain Singh Mahar, the union has opposed the version of the management on the plea that since no explanation or charge-sheet etc. has been issued to the workman for his alleged misconducts, therefore, the Action of the management for including the name of said workman in the list of proposed retrenchment cannot said to be correct. During arguments, the management had produced some document showing the in subordination, disobedience, unreliability, habitually irregular in the discharge of duties etc. on the part of Shri Ram Narain Singh, which are sufficient and valid reason for the satisfaction of the management. I am of the considered option that if the management wants to retrench such a in disciplined workman by departing the principle of last come, first go, it will not be vocative of the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act in any way. The judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court (supra) in this regard is very much clear that the court cannot insist on the principle of last come, first go for employees who lost confidence of employers, but in such cases, the management is required to record the reasons."-3-
The appellant challenged the said order before the learned Single Judge by filing CWP No. 10468/2000. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition by order dated 6th November, 2009 and the said order was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Additional Labour Commissioner made the aforesaid observation on the basis of the materials alleging indiscipline on the part of appellant which were not supplied to the appellant. It is further contended that no such ground was shown in the notice of retrenchment served on the appellant.
Though notice was issued and served on respondents, they have not appeared thereby not disputed the aforesaid fact.
We have noticed the submission made on behalf of the appellant and perused the judgment.
From the record we find that the Management supplied certain records for the Additional Labour Commissioner alleging indiscipline on the part of the appellant. However, no such ground was taken in the notice for retrenchment which was served on the appellant.
It is settled that Management can remove the workman on the ground of indiscipline or misconduct but in such case the ground has to be mentioned in the notice and at least some evidence has to be cited in support of such allegation. In such a situation, the workman can understand the gravity of the charge and if required may deny the allegation or accept the same. In case a -4- workman is removed on the ground of indiscipline or misconduct, the principle of "last come, first go" as envisaged under Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not attracted. However, in absence of such ground taken in the notice for retrenchment, it is always open to the workman to allege violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if any junior is retained while challenging the order of retrenchment.
As both the Additional Labour Commissioner and the High Court failed to notice the aforesaid fact, we set aside the order dated 27th July, 2000 passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner and the order dated 6th November, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.10468 of 2000 and the impugned judgment dated 3rd March, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA Nio.1301.The case is remitted back to the Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab to pass appropriate order after hearing the parties.
The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. No Cost.
...............................J. ( SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA ) ..............................J. (S.A. BOBDE) NEW DELHI;
JULY 09, 2014