# KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN v. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA AND ANR

- **Citation:** [2001] 3 S.C.R. 284
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2001-05-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2738 of 2001
- **Bench:** S.P. Bharucha, V.N. Khare, N. Santosh Hegde, Y.K. Sabharwal, Shivaraj V. Patil
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/karnataka-state-road-transport-corpn-v-smt-lakshmidevamma-and-anr-17909
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

Labour Laws:
c
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 10 and 13-Domestic enquiryTermination of service of employee-Right of employer to adduce evidence"
in justification of its action-When can be invoked-Held, employer should
exercise its right of leading fresh evidence at the first available opportunity
and not at any time thereafter during the proceedings before the Tribunal/
D
LaboW-Court.
Right of employer to adduce evidence-In justification of its actionNot a statutory duty-It is a procedure laid down by court to avoid delay
)'-
in disposal of disputes.
E
Doctrines:
~
Doctrine of Stare decisis-De,cision holding the field for long timeNot to be unsettled unless there is a strong cause.
Respondent-employee was dismissed from senice after an enquiry.
Jf. Labour court held that the enquiry conducted by the appellant-employer was
not sustainable in law. Thereafter, the appellant sought permission to adduce
evidence to prove the charge against the respondent. Labour court followed
the decision in Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda & Others. It held that
since the appellant had not sought permission to adduce evidence in the
counter statement, it could not seek the same after a finding had been given
G on the l>reliminary issue. High Court upheld the same. On appeal before this
Court a two Judge Bench observed that there was a conflict between the
decisions in Shambu Nath Goyal and Rajendra Jha and referred the matter
to a larger Bench. Thus the matter came before the present Bench.
,,_
H
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
284
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. v. SMT. LAKSHMJDEVAMMA
285
HELD:
A
Per Santosh Hegde J. (for himself and Bharucha J.)
1. Management has to exercise its right of leading fresh evidence in
justification of its action under a domestic enquiry at the first available
opportunity and not at any time thereafter during the 1>roceedings before the B
tribunal/labour court. Rajendra Jha s case was decided on the facts of the case
without laying down any 1>rinciple of law and the Court has not taken any
view 01>1msed to Shambu Nath Goyal s case. Thus, there is no conflict between
the ,judgments in Shambu Nath Goyal and Rajendra Jha s case. (289-G]
Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., [1984[ 1 SCR 85 and C
Rajendra Jha v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Distt.
Dhanbad and Am~, [1985) 1 SCR 544, affirmed.
2. Shambu Nath Goyal s case has held the field for nearly 18 years,
therefore, the doctrine of stare decisis requires it to be approved, to see that
a long standing decision is not unsettled without any strong cause. [294-C]
Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., [1984) 1 SCR 85,
aff'rrmed.
D
3. The right of a management to lead eYidence before the labour court
or the Industrial Tribunal in.Justification of its decision under consideration E
by such Tribunal or Court is not a statutory right It is a procedure laid down
by the Com1 to avoid delay and multiplicity of1>roceedings in the disposal of
dis1mtes between the management and the workmen. Further this procedure
is neither oppressive nor contrary to the object and scheme of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. [290-B]
F
Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd v. Motipur Sugar Factory,
(1965) 3 SCR 588 and Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., [1984]
1 SCR 85, relied on.
4. On facts, the management did not seek permission to lead evidence G
until after the Labour Court had held that its domestic enquiry was vitiated.
Therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant
(294-E]
5. The management can be given the right to adduce eVidence to justify
its domestic enquiry only if it has reserved its right to do so in the a1>1>Iication H
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 3 S.C.R.
A made by it under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 or in the
objection that the management has to file to the reference made under section
10 of the Act. [293-F]
6. The opportunity of leading evidence is being

## Text

_Characters 0–39,539 of 58,131. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39539 for what follows._

A
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.
v.
SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA AND ANR.
A_ ""'
MAY 1, 2001
B
[S.P. BHARUCHA, V.N. KHARE, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, Y.K.
SABHARWAL AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]
Labour Laws:
c
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 10 and 13-Domestic enquiryTermination of service of employee-Right of employer to adduce evidence"
in justification of its action-When can be invoked-Held, employer should
exercise its right of leading fresh evidence at the first available opportunity
and not at any time thereafter during the proceedings before the Tribunal/
D
LaboW-Court.
Right of employer to adduce evidence-In justification of its actionNot a statutory duty-It is a procedure laid down by court to avoid delay
)'-
in disposal of disputes.
E
Doctrines:
~
Doctrine of Stare decisis-De,cision holding the field for long timeNot to be unsettled unless there is a strong cause.
Respondent-employee was dismissed from senice after an enquiry.
Jf. Labour court held that the enquiry conducted by the appellant-employer was
not sustainable in law. Thereafter, the appellant sought permission to adduce
evidence to prove the charge against the respondent. Labour court followed
the decision in Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda & Others. It held that
since the appellant had not sought permission to adduce evidence in the
counter statement, it could not seek the same after a finding had been given
G on the l>reliminary issue. High Court upheld the same. On appeal before this
Court a two Judge Bench observed that there was a conflict between the
decisions in Shambu Nath Goyal and Rajendra Jha and referred the matter
to a larger Bench. Thus the matter came before the present Bench.
,,_
H
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
284
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. v. SMT. LAKSHMJDEVAMMA
285
HELD:
A
Per Santosh Hegde J. (for himself and Bharucha J.)
1. Management has to exercise its right of leading fresh evidence in
justification of its action under a domestic enquiry at the first available
opportunity and not at any time thereafter during the 1>roceedings before the B
tribunal/labour court. Rajendra Jha s case was decided on the facts of the case
without laying down any 1>rinciple of law and the Court has not taken any
view 01>1msed to Shambu Nath Goyal s case. Thus, there is no conflict between
the ,judgments in Shambu Nath Goyal and Rajendra Jha s case. (289-G]
Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., [1984[ 1 SCR 85 and C
Rajendra Jha v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Distt.
Dhanbad and Am~, [1985) 1 SCR 544, affirmed.
2. Shambu Nath Goyal s case has held the field for nearly 18 years,
therefore, the doctrine of stare decisis requires it to be approved, to see that
a long standing decision is not unsettled without any strong cause. [294-C]
Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., [1984) 1 SCR 85,
aff'rrmed.
D
3. The right of a management to lead eYidence before the labour court
or the Industrial Tribunal in.Justification of its decision under consideration E
by such Tribunal or Court is not a statutory right It is a procedure laid down
by the Com1 to avoid delay and multiplicity of1>roceedings in the disposal of
dis1mtes between the management and the workmen. Further this procedure
is neither oppressive nor contrary to the object and scheme of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. [290-B]
F
Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (P) Ltd v. Motipur Sugar Factory,
(1965) 3 SCR 588 and Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., [1984]
1 SCR 85, relied on.
4. On facts, the management did not seek permission to lead evidence G
until after the Labour Court had held that its domestic enquiry was vitiated.
Therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant
(294-E]
5. The management can be given the right to adduce eVidence to justify
its domestic enquiry only if it has reserved its right to do so in the a1>1>Iication H
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 3 S.C.R.
A made by it under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 or in the
objection that the management has to file to the reference made under section
10 of the Act. [293-F]
6. The opportunity of leading evidence is being sought by the
management only as an alternative plea and not as an admission of illegality
B in its domestic enquiry. It is also of advantage to the workmen as they will be
put to notice of the fact that they can keep their rebuttal or other evidence
ready. [293-H]
c
Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Others, [1984] 1 SCR 85,
affirmed.
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, [1972] 3 SCR
29; Cooper Engineering Limited v. Sri P.P Mundhe, [1976] 1 SCR 361 and
Shankar Ch,ikravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. arid Anr., [1979] 3 SCR
1165, refcrrcu to.
D
Per Shivaraj V. Patil J. for himself and Khare J. (Supplementing).
1. Labour courts/tribunals have power to call for any evidence at any
stage of the proceedings if the facts and circumstances of the case demand
the same to meet the ends of justice in a given situation. The management
has to seek leave of the court/t1ibunal in the written statement itself to lead
E additional evidence to ~upport its action in the alternative and "ithout prejudice
to its rights and contentions to avoid unnecessary delay and multiplicity of
proceedings. But this should not place fetters on the 1>owers of the court/
tribunal requiring or directing parties to lead additional evidence including
production of documents at any stage of the proceedings before they are
F concluded if on facts and circumstances of the case it is deemed just and
necessary in the interest of justice. [295-C-D]
Per Sabhanval J (Dissenting) :
1. The procedure laid down in Shambu Nath Goyal's case that the
G employer can be permitted to adduce evidence before the Labour Court to
justify the misconduct of the workman only if it had reserved such a right in
the application ma!fe by it under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Act or in the objection and written statement filed in reference under Section
10 of the Act and not at any time thereafter during the proceedings before
the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, is not just, fair and reasonable both to
H the employer and the workman. The consideration is on the rule of
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. v SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
287
·-
convenience, expediency and prudence and there is no statutory prohibition, A
~
),
therefore, the procedure which promotes the cause of both employer and
workman deserves to be laid down. [297-E-F]
Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., [1984) 1 SCR 85,
dissented from
B
Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Am~, [1979] 3
SCC 371 and Rajendra Jha v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel
City, Dist!. Dhanbad and Am~, [1985] 1 SCR 544, affirmed.
2. To allow or not to allow the 1wayer of the management to adduce c
evidence should essentially lie within the discretion of .Labour Court/
Industrial Tribunal to be exercised on well settled judicial principles. H any
illegality is committed in exercise of that discretion it can be corrected in
higher forums. There are no compelling reasons to limit the power and
jurisdiction of the Labour Court and debar consideration of the request to
adduce evidence if not made at the initial stage but made prior to close of D
proceedings before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. [297-G]
3. It is not possible to hold that if the employer does not express his
desire to lead additional evidence in reply to statement of claim in proceedings
under section 10 of the Act or when an a11plication is filed for approval under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the em1>1oyer cannot be allowed to exercise option E
at a later liiage of the 1iroceedings by making an appli~ation for the purpose.
The em1>1oyer's request, when made before close of l>roceedings, deserves to
be examined by the Labour Courtrrribunal on its own merits. The Labour
~
Court/Tribunal will exercise discretion and would examine the bona fides of
the employer in making such an application. [305-H; 306-A]
F
Mis. Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shri Jai Singh and Ors., [1962] 3 SCR
684; Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1963] 3 SCR 461;
Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Limited v. Motipur Sugar ·
Factory, 1965] 3 SCR 588; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh
Singh, [1972] 1 SCC 595; The Workmen of Mis. Firestone Tyre and Rubber G
Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management .and Ors., [1973] 1 SCC 813;
Cooper Engineering Ltd v. Shri P.P. Mundhe, [1976] 1 SCR 361 and Shankar
~
Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Anr:, [1979] 3 SCC 371, relied
on.
Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1962) H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 3 S.C.R.
A Supp. 1 SCR 315, referred to.
B
4. In the im1ant case, since the award was made by the Labour Court
more than 16 years back and the employee has already retired, it would not
be appropriate to interfere in exercise of power under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. (306-F)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2738 of
2001.
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.90 of the Karnataka High Court
C in W.P. No. 11539 ofl985.
D
E
F
R.S. Hegde for K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellant.
Raj Kumar Gupta and A.N. Bardiyar for the Respondents.
I
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. This appeal is referred to a Bench ofFive Judges
based on the following order made by a Bench of two Judges of this Court.
"In view of the conflict of decisions of this Court in Shambhu Nath
Goyalv. Bank of Baroda & Others, [1984) 1SCR85 andRajendraJha
v. Labour Court, [1985) 1 SCR 544, we are referring this matter to a
larger Bench which has to be a Bench of more than three Judges. Mr.
Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, states that there
is no conflict in the decisions. According to us, that submission is not
correct. Hence, we are referring this to a larger Bench."
It is seen from the above order that the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents had contended that there is no conflict between the two
judgments referred to in the said order. However, the Bench thought otherwise.
Since it is again contended now before us on behalf of the respondents that
there is no conflict between the said judgments, we will first examine that
G aspect of the case.
In Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda & Others, [1984) 1 SCR 85
this Court held:
"The rights which the employer has in law to adduce additional
H
evidence in a proceeding before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal
- ...
..
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. v. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA (SANTOSH HEGDE, J.]
289
either under section 10 or section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act A
questioning the legality of the order terminating the service must be
availed of by the employer by making a proper request at the time
when it files its statement of claim or written statement or makes an
application seeking either permission to take certain action or
seeking approval of the action taken by it. "
(emphasis supplied) B
This decision was rendered by the Court while deciding the stage at
which the management is entitled to seek pemrission to adduce evidence in
justification of its decision taken on the basis of a domestic enquiry.
In Rajendra Jha v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, C
Distt.Dhanbad &Anr., [1985] 1 SCR 544, though this Court was considering
a similar question, we find the Court did not lay down any law contrary to
the judgment in Shambu Nath Goyal's case. A perusal of the judgment oftlris
Court in Rajendra Jha's case shows that the Court decided the said case on
the facts of that case only. This is clear from the following observations of D
the Court in Rajendra Jha's case :
"Thus, the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the employers
to lead evidence has been accepted and acted upon by the appellant.
He has already given a list of his own witnesses and has crossexanrined the witnesses whose evidence was led by the employers. It E
would be wrong, at this stage, to undo what has been done in
pursuance of the order of the Labour Court. Besides, the challenge
made by the appellant to the order of the Labour Court has failed and
the order of the Patna High Court dismissing the appellant's writ
petition has become final."
Thus it is seen from the above observations of the Court in Rajendra
Jha's case that same is decided on the facts of the said case without laying
down any principle of law nor has the Court taken any view opposed to
Shambu Nath Goyal's case. Therefore, having considered the two judgments,
F
we are of the opinion that there is no conflict in the judgments of this Court G
in the cases of Shambu Nath Goyal and Rajendra Jha.
This, however, does not conclude our consideration of this appeaL
because on behalf of the appellant reliance is placed on some other earlier
judgments of this Court which, according to the appellant, have taken a view
contrary to that of Shambu Nath Goyal's case. Therefore, we consider it H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2001] 3 S.C.R.
A appropriate to decide this question with a hope of putting a quietus to the
•
same.
Before we proceed to examine this question any further, it will be useful
to bear in mind that the right of a management to lead evidence before the
Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal in justification of its decision under
B consideration by such tribunal or Court is not a statutory right. This is
actually a procedure laid down by this Court to avoid delay and multiplicity
of proceedings in the disposal of disputes between the management and the
· workman. The geneses of this procedure can be traced by noticing the
following observations of this Court in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory
C (P) Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory, [1965] 3 SCR 588 :
D
E
F
"If it is held that in cases where the employer dismisses his employee
without holdiag an enquiry, the dismissal must be set aside by the
industrial tribunal only on that ground, it would inevitably mean that
the employer will immediately proceed to hold the enquiry and pass
an order dismissing the employee once again. In that case, another
industrial dispute would arise and the employer would be entitled to
rely upon the enquiry which he had held in the mean··time. This course
would mean delay and on the second occasion it will entitle the
employer to claim the benefit of the domestic enquiry given. On the
other hand, if in such cases the employer is given an opportunity to
justify the impugned dismissal on the merits of his case being
considered by the tribunal for itself and that clearly would be to the
benefit of the employee. That is why this Court has consistently held
that if the domestic enquiry is irregular, invalid or improper, the tribunal
may give an opportunity to the employer to prove his case and in
doing so the tribunal tries the merits itself ...... "
Bearing in mind the above observations if we examine the various
decisions of this Court on this question it is seen that in all the judgn1ents
this Court has agreed on the conferment of this right of the management but
there seems to be some differences of opinion in regard to the timings of
G making such application. While some judgn1ents hold that such a right can
be availed by the management at any stage of the proceedings right upto the
stage of pronouncement of the order on the original application filed either
under Section 10 or Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, some
other judgments hold that the said right can be invoked only at the threshold.
H
There are a number of judgments of this Court considering the above
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. v. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA(SANTOSH HEGDE, J.]
291
question but we think it sufficient to refer to the following cases only since A
these cases have considered almost all the earlier judgments on the question
involved in this appeal.
In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, (1972] 3 SCR
29 this Court after referring to most of the earlier cases on the point laid down
the following principle :
B
"When a domestic inquiry has been held by the management and the
management relies on it, the management may request the Tribunal to
try the validity of the domestic inquiry as a preliminary issue and also
ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal if the
finding on the preliminary issue is against the management. In such C
a case if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the management,
the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to adduce
additional evidence and also give a similar opportunity to the employee
to lead evidence contra. But the management should avail itself of the
said opportunity by making a suitable request to the Tribunal before D
the proceedings are closed. If no such opportunity has been availed
of before the proceedings were closed, the employer can make no
grievance that the Tribunal did not provide for such an opportunity."
(Emphasis supplied)
The words "before the proceedings are closed" gave rise to some E
doubts as to whether it is open to the management to seek this right of
leading fresh evidence at any stage, including at a stage where the Tribunal/
Labour Court had concluded the proceedings and reserved its judgment on
the main issue.
The above judgment in D.C.M.'s case can1e to be considered again by F
this Court in the case of Cooper Engineering Limited v. Sri P.P.Mundhe,
[1976] I SCR 361, wherein this Court held:
"We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that when a case of disraissal
G
or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the
Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the
domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When
there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the
employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in
controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a
preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the H
292
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 3 S.C.R.
management to decide whether it will adduce _any evidence before the
Labour Court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be
thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should
also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to
stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the labour court by
questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the
matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be
also legitimate for the High Court to refuse'to intervene at this stage.
We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no
undue delay in industrial adjudication."
C
As is seen from the above, this Court in Cooper Engineering's case
held that when the Tribunal/Labour Court was called upon to decide the
validity of the domestic enquiry same has to be tried as a preliminary issue
and thereafter, if necessary, the management was to be given an option to
adduce fresh evidence. But the problem did not stop at that.
D
The question again arose in the case of Shambu Nath Goyal's case
(supra) as to the propriety of waiting till the preliminary issue was decided
to give an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence, because after
the decision in the preliminary issue on the validity of the domestic enquiry,
either way, there was nothing much left to be decided thereafter. Therefore,
in Shambu Nath Goyal 's case this Court once again considered the said
E question in a different perspective. In this judgment, the Court after discussing
the earlier cases including t}lat of Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit
Co. Ltd. & Anr., [1979] 3 SCR 1165, which was a judgment of this Court
subsequent to that of Cooper Engineering (supra), the following principles
were laid down:
F
G
H
"We think that the application of the management to seek the
permission of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for availing the
right to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charge or charges
framed against the workman referred to in the above passage in the
application which may be filed by the management during the pendency
of its application made before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal
seeking its permission under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 to take a certain action or grant approval of the action taken
by it. The management is made aware of the workman's contention
regarding the defeat in the domestic enquiry by the written statement
of defence filed by him in the application filed by the management
under section 33 of the Act. Then, if the management chooses to
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. v. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA (SANTOSH HEGDE, J.]
293
exercise its right it must make up its mind at the earliest stage and file A
the application for that purpose without any unreasonable delay. But
when the question arises in a reference under s. l 0 of the Act after t,he
workman had been punished pursuant to a finding of guilt recorded
against him in the domestic enquiry there is no question of the
management filing any application for permission to lead further B
evidence in support of the charge or charges framed against the
workman, for the defeat in the domestic enquiry is pointed out by the
workman in his written claim statement filed in the Labour Court or
Industrial Tribunal after the reference had been received and the
management has the opportunity to look into that statement before it
files its written statement of defence in the enquiry before the Labour C
Court or Industrial Tribunal and could make the request for the
opportunity in the written statement itself. If it does not choose to d,o
so at that stage it cannot be allowed to do it at any later stage of the
proceedings by filing any application for the purpose which may
result in delay which may lead to wrecking the morale of the workman
and compel him to surrender which he may not otherwise do."
D
-~
While considering the decision in Shambu Nath Goyal's case, we should
bear in mind that the judgment of Vardarajan,J. therein does not refer to the
case of Cooper Engineering (supra). However, the concurring judgment of
D.A. Desai, J. specifically considers this case. By the judgment in Goyal's E
case the management was given the right to adduce evidence to justify its
domestic enquiry only if it had reserved its right to do so in the application
made by it under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or in the
objection that the management had to file to the reference made under section
10 of the Act, meaning thereby the management had to exercise its right of
leading fresh evidence at the first available opportunity and not at any time F
thereafter during the proceedings before the Tribunal/Labour Court.
Keeping in mind/the object of providing an opportunity to the
management to adduce evidence before the Tribunal/Labour Court, we are of ,
the opinion that the directions issued by this Court in Shambu Nath Goyal's . G
case need not be varied, being just and fair. There can be no complaint from
the management side for this procedure because this opportunity of leading
evidence is being sought by the management only as an alternative plea and
not as an admission of illegality in its domestic enquiry. At the same time, it
is also of advantage to the workmen inasmuch as they will be put to notice
of the fact that the management is likely to adduce fresh evidence, hence, H
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 3 S.C.R.
A they can keep their rebuttal or other evidence ready. This procedure also
eliminates the likely delay in permitting the management to make belated
,..\
application whereby the proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal could
get prolonged. In our opinion, the procedure laid down in Shambu Nath
Goyal's case is just and fair.
B
There is one other reason why we should accept the procedure laid .
down by this Court in Shambu Nath Goyal s case. It is to be noted that this
judgment was delivered on 27th of September, 1983. It has taken note of
almost all the earlier judgments of this Court and has laid down the procedure
for exercising the right of leading evidence by the management which we have
C held is neither oppressive nor contrary to the object and scheme of the Act.
This judgment having held the field for nearly 18 years, in our opinion, the
doctrine of stare decisis require us to approve the said judgment to see that
a long standing decision is not unsettled without strong cause.
For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the law laid
D down by this Court in the case of Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda
& Others, [1984] I SCR 85 is the correct law on·the point.
In the present case, the appellant employer did not seek permission to.
lead evidence until after the Labour Court had held that its domestic enquiry
was vitiated. Applying the aforestated principles to these facts, we are of the
E opinion that the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition of the
appellant, hence, this appeal has to fail. The san1e is dismissed with costs.
SHNARAJ V. PATIL, J. After going through the draft judgment prepared
by N. Santosh Hedge J., we respectfully agreed with the same. Having gone
through the draft judgment prepared by Y.K. Sabharwal J., received later, we
F felt the· necessity of adding the following few lines.
The question as to at what stage the management should seek leave of
the labour court/tribunal to lead evidence/additional evidence justifying its
action is considered in the draft judgment of Hegde J. and not the power of
G the court/tribunal requiring or directing the parties to produce evidence if
deemed fit in a given case having regard to the facts and circumstances of
that case. As per Section 11(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short
the 'Act') a court/tribunal can follvw the procedure which it thinks fit in the
. circumstances of the case subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules
framed thereunder and in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
H Under Section 11(3), labour court/ tribunal and other authorities mentioned
KARNATAKA ST.ATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. v. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA[SANTOSH HEGDE, J.]
295
therein have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code A
of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of certain matters which
include enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath
and compelling the production of documents and material objects.
It is consistently held and accepted that strict rule of evidence are not
applicable to the proceedings before labour court/tribunal but essentially the B
rules of natural justice are to be observed in such proceedings. Labom
courts/tribunals have power to call for any evidence at any stage of the
proceedings if the facts and circumstances of the case demand the same to
meet the ends of justice in a given situation. We reiterate that in order to,
avoid unnecessary delay .. and multiplicity of proceedings, the management, C
has to seek leave of the court/tribunal in the written statement itself to lead
additional eviden~ to support its action in the alternative and without prejudice
to its rights and contentions. But tltls should not be understood as placing
fetters on the powers of the court/tribunal requiring or directing parties to
lead additional evidence including production of documents at any stage of
the proceedings before they are concluded if on facts and circumstances of D
the case it is deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice.
· Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. In this matter, in substance the question for
determination is that if in proceedings before the Labour Court under Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7, the employer does not make a prayer
in the written statement filed in answer to the statement of claim of the E
workman, indicating that the employer would adduce evidence to prove the
charge of misconduct against tl1e workman in the event of Labour ·Court
coming to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the employer which
was the basis of the order of termination of the services of the workman was
illegal, but such a prayer is made before close of proceedings, does it require p
to be considered on merits by the Labour Court or it deserves outright
rejection.
In Shambu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda & Ors:, [1994] 1 SCR 85 this
Court held that to avail the opportunity as aforesaid thl! employer should
make a proper request at the time when it files its statement of claim or written G
statement or makes an application seeking either permission to take certain
action or seeking approval of the action taken by it and if it does not choose
· to do so at that stage, it cannot be allowed to do it at any later stage of the
proceedings by filing an application for that purpose.
In Rajendra Jha v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, H
296
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001] 3 S.C.R.
A Dist!. Dhanbad & Anr., [1985] 1 SCR 544 this Court was concerned with a
case where the Labour Court held that the departmental enquiry was vitiated
~
and by the same order allowed the employers to lead evidence to justify the
order of dismissaI. It was held that in passing the order allowing the employers
to lead evidence, the Labour Court cannot be said to have acted without
B
jurisdiction. It has been noticed in the judgment that the employer did not ask
for an opportunity to lead evidence simultaneously with the filing of the
application under Section 33(2)(b) but when the hearing of that application
was nearing completion but before the final orders were passed therein, the
employers asked for an opportunity to led evidence to justify the order of
dismissal.
c
In the present case, a Bench of two Judges, noticing conflict of decisions
in the aforesaid two cases, referred the matter to a larger Bench of more than
three Judges rejecting the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that
there is no such conflict. There are other decisions as well taking view
D
contrary to that of Shambu Nath Goyal's case (supra) and holding that the
employer to avail opportunity to adduce evidence has to make a request
before the proceedings are closed.
The circumstances under which the present case has arisen in brief are
~
these:
E
The respondent was charge-sheeted for misconduct. Consequence upon
an enquiry, she was dismissed from service in October, 1977. The legality of
the order of dismissal was clrallenged before the Labour Court in a reference
under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court by order
dated 27th October, 1984 decided the preliminary isslie and held that the
.
.
F domestic enquiry conducted by the management was not fair, proper or
reasonable and it was not sustainable in law. Soon thereafter, on 19th November,
1984, an application was filed by the appellant/employer seeking permission
to adduce evidence before the Labour Court to prove the charge of misconduct
against the respondent. In view of the decision of this Court in Shambu Nath
G Goyal's case (supra), the Labour Court by order dated 10th December, 1984
held that the management should have asked for an opportunity to lead
evidence in the counter statement itself and that not having been done, it
cannot be permitted to adduce evidence on merits after finding is given on
the preliminary issue. Ultimately by award dated 26th December 1984, the
-1"
order of dismissal was set aside and order of reinstatement with 50% back
H wages was passed. The award was challenged in a writ petition. In view of
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANS. CORPN. v. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.]
297
the decision in Shambu Nath Goyal s case, the writ petition was dismissed A
by the High Court on 3rd August, 1990. Dealing with the contention urged
on behalf of the management that if it is deprived of an opportunity of
adducing the evidence before the Labour Court, liberty should be reserved
to it to hold a fresh inequity, the Division Bench of the High Court referring
to the decision of this Court in Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, [1962] Supp. I SCR 315 held that if an order of dismissal B
is set aside in a reference on the ground that the domestic enquiry held by
the management pursuant to which removal from service of the workman was
passed was invalid and the management is prevented from adducing evidence
before it on the ground that the management had not made the request for
adducing evidence in the written statement, all that happens is that insteaq C
of the enquiry going on before the Labour Court, an enquiry can take place
at the discretion . of the management before the competent authority. The
judgment and order of the High Court, dated 3rd August, 1990 is under
challenge in this appeal, the notice on special leave petition having been
issued on 26th August, 1991 and the order of reference having been made
on 6th January, 1995.
D
I have gone through the draft judgment proposed by Hon'ble Mr.
Justice N. Santosh Hegde. The opinion e>..-pressed therein is that the procedure
laid down in Shambhu Nath Goyal s case (supra) is just and fair. That means
that the employer can be permitted to adduce evidence before the Labour E
Court to justify the misconduct of the workman only if it had reserved sucli.
a right in the application made by it under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act or in the objection and written statement filed in reference under
Section 10 of the Act and not at any time thereafter during the proceedings
before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. With utmost respect, I am unable
to agree. Such an interpretation of procedure takes away the discretion of the F
Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. To allow or not to allow the prayer of th~
management to adduce evidence in such a matter should essentially lie within:
the discretion of Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to be exercised on well
settled judicial principles. If any illegality is committed in exercise of that
discretion, it can be corrected in higher forums. There are no compelling G
reasons to limit the power and jurisdiction of the Labour Court and debar
consideration of the request to adduce evidence if not made at the initia~
stage but made before close of proceedings before the Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal.
The right of the employer to adduce evidence before the labour Court/ H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·
[2001] 3 S.C.R.
A Industrial Tribunal to justify the termination of the services of a workman has
.
.>
been recognised in various judgments of this Court delivered in last more
'
than four decades. Such a right is not in dispute. In Mis. Bharat Sugar Mills
.."'.
Ltd. v. Shri Jai Singh & Ors., [1962] 3 SCR 684, this Court said that the
Tribunal rightly allowed the management to adduce evidence before it in
B
support of its application for permission 10 dismiss even though the domestic
enquiry held by it was highly defective. That was a case under Section 33(2)
of the Industrial Disputes Act. In Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its
Workmen, [1963] 3 SCR 461, which appeal arose out of reference under
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court again reiterated that if
the finding on the preliminary issue is against the employer, permission will
,.._
c have to be given to the employer to adduce additional evidence.
In Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Limited v. Motipur
Sugar Factory, [1965] 3 SCR 588, whil~ reiterating that the employer could
""-
adduce evidence before the Tribunal, the Court noticed that if the employer
D
is given an opportunity to jm:tify the impugned dismissal on merits of his
case being considered by the Tribunal for itself that would be to the benefit
of the employee and that is why this Court has consistently held that if
domestic enquiry is irregular, invalid or improper, tl1e tribunal may give an
>--
opportunity to the employer to prove his case and in doing so the tribunal
tries the merits itself. This view, it was said, is consistent with the approach
E which industrial adjudication generally adopts with a view to do justice
between the parties without relying too much on technical considerations and
with the object of avoiding delay in the disposal of industrial disputes. It was
noticed that if such a right is not granted, it would inevitably mean that the
employer will immediately proceed to hold the enquiry and pass an order
dismissing the employee once again and this cours~ would mean delay and
;....
F would further entitle the employer to claim benefit of the domestic enquiry.
It has been consistently held that in principle, there is no difference whether
the matter comes before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under Section
33 or on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. In either
case; the employer would have to justify that the order of dismissal or
G discharge was proper. In either case, the employer will have right to adduce
evidence where the employer dismisses an employee witl1out holding an
enquiry or enquiry is found to be defective.
In none of the aforesaid cases, however, the question as to which stage
-'(
the employer should make a prayer for adducing evidence came up for
H consideration. This question came to be considered in Delhi Cloth and
KARNATAKA STJIJ'E ROAD TRANS. CORPN. v. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.]
299
General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, [1972] 1SCC595. It was held therein A
that the management should avail of the opportunity to adduce evidence by
making a suitable request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are closed.
The principles laid down in DCM s case insofar as relevant for the present
purposes are as contained in sub-paras 4 and 5 of para 61 of the report which
read as under:
B
"( 4) When a domestic enquiry has been held by the management and
the manage~ent relies on the sam~, it is open to the latter to request
the Tribunal to try the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary
issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the
Tribunal, if the finding on the preliminary issue fs against the C
management. However elaborate and cumbersome the procedure may
Ile, under such circumstances, it is open to the Tribunal to deal, in the
first instance, as a preliminary issue the validity of the domestic
enquiry. If is finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the
management, then no additional evidence need be cited by the
management. But if the finding on the preliminary issue is against the D
management, the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity
to cite additional evidence and also give a similar opportunity to the
employee to lead evidence contra, as the request to adduce evidence
had been made by the management to the Tribunal during the course
of the proceedings and before the trial has come to an end. When the E
preliminary issue is decided against the management and the latter
leads evidence. before the Tribunal, the position, under such
circumstances, will be, that the management is deprived of the benefit
of having the finding of the domestic Tribunal being accepted as
prima facie proof of the alleged miscond~ct. On the other hand, the
management will have to prove, by adducing proper evidence, that the F
workman is guilty bf misconduct and that the action taken by it is
proper.