# MANAGEMENT OF PANITOLE TEA ESTATE· v. THE WORKMEN Febru°'ry 18, 1911

- **Citation:** [1971] 3 S.C.R. 774
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-10-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1137 of 1970
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, I. D. Dua
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/management-of-panitole-tea-estate-v-the-workmen-febru-ry-18-1911-5411
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

J,idust1·ial Dispute-Disniissal of worknJen-Order
of
reinstatcnH!lli
b,y Labour Court-Reinstatemen~ of compensation-Circumstances justifying reinstatemcnt-Constif,;tion of Indic, Art. 136---Interference by Supreme
Court.
In the course of a domestic enquiry on a charge of pilferage against B
a part time clerk who was incharge of a godown of the appellant a chit
was produced suggesting collusion with him of H another workman. The
appellant ;Gstituted a domestic enquiry against the workman and he was
dismissed.
On a reference of the Industrial Dispute the Labour Court held
that the contents of the chit were too vague and were procured only to
harass the workman for no fault of his, that the domestic enquiry was
violative of the principle of natural justice, and its findings perverse and·
without a!)y evidence to support them.
Consequently it ordered the reinstatem.ent of the workman. The management appealed to his Court contending that instead of reinstatement the workman should be paid compensation. It also raised the plea that it had lost confidence in the workman.
HELD : The present case is not one in which this Court would be justified in interfering, on appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution, with the
order of 1he Tribunal. The ques.ion whether on setting aside the wrongful
dismissal of a workman he should be reinstated or directed to be paid
compensation is a matter within the judicial discretion of the Labour Court
or the Tribunal, dealing with the industrial dispute, the general ru:" in the
absence of any special Circumstances being of reinstatement. In exercising
this discretion, fairplay towards the employee on the one--lnmd and interest
of the employer, including considerations of discipline In the establishment,
on the other, require to be duly safeguarded. This is necessary in the
interest both of security of tenure of the employee and of smooth and
harmonious working of the establishment. Legitimate ntere0 ts of ooth
of them have to be kept in view if the order 'is expected to promote the
desired objective of industrial peace and maximurrl possible production. The
past record of the employee, the nature of the alleged conduction which
the order of the employer is set aside, the nature of the duties perforn1ed
by .the employee concerned and the nature of the industrial establishment
are some of the broad relevant factors which require to be taken into
-consideration. These factors are merely illusl'rative. Each case bas to be
f decided on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can laid down to ct>ver
generall} all cortceivable contingencies. Proper balance has to be maintained be1-n the coofficting claims of the employer and the employee
without jeopardising the larger interests of industrial peace and progress.
[780 DJ.
There was no evidence to conclude that the management lost confidence
in the wo1kman. If the workman is entitled as a general rule to be reinstated after his wrongful dismissal is set aside apd on the facts if is not
poss;ble to find cogent material on which the establishment can genuinely
be considered to have lost confidence in the integrity of the workman. he
A
'
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PANITOLE TEA ESTATE v. WORKMEN (Dua, J.)
77fJ.
A
1s entitled to be reinstated.
The suggestion that having regard to the
nature oi the p<oceedings against the workman the management has lost
confidence wa$ acceptable. [782 F]
If the workman's dismissal was wrongful then merely because proceedings for ,adjudication of the industrial dispute have taken a long time (I 0
years) was by iti;elf no reason for not directing his reinstatement if it
B
was otherwise justified being in accordance with the normal rule. [782 G]
c

## Text

774
MANAGEMENT OF PANITOLE TEA ESTATE·
v.
THE WORKMEN
Febru°'ry 18, 1911
[J. M. SHELAT AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J
J,idust1·ial Dispute-Disniissal of worknJen-Order
of
reinstatcnH!lli
b,y Labour Court-Reinstatemen~ of compensation-Circumstances justifying reinstatemcnt-Constif,;tion of Indic, Art. 136---Interference by Supreme
Court.
In the course of a domestic enquiry on a charge of pilferage against B
a part time clerk who was incharge of a godown of the appellant a chit
was produced suggesting collusion with him of H another workman. The
appellant ;Gstituted a domestic enquiry against the workman and he was
dismissed.
On a reference of the Industrial Dispute the Labour Court held
that the contents of the chit were too vague and were procured only to
harass the workman for no fault of his, that the domestic enquiry was
violative of the principle of natural justice, and its findings perverse and·
without a!)y evidence to support them.
Consequently it ordered the reinstatem.ent of the workman. The management appealed to his Court contending that instead of reinstatement the workman should be paid compensation. It also raised the plea that it had lost confidence in the workman.
HELD : The present case is not one in which this Court would be justified in interfering, on appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution, with the
order of 1he Tribunal. The ques.ion whether on setting aside the wrongful
dismissal of a workman he should be reinstated or directed to be paid
compensation is a matter within the judicial discretion of the Labour Court
or the Tribunal, dealing with the industrial dispute, the general ru:" in the
absence of any special Circumstances being of reinstatement. In exercising
this discretion, fairplay towards the employee on the one--lnmd and interest
of the employer, including considerations of discipline In the establishment,
on the other, require to be duly safeguarded. This is necessary in the
interest both of security of tenure of the employee and of smooth and
harmonious working of the establishment. Legitimate ntere0 ts of ooth
of them have to be kept in view if the order 'is expected to promote the
desired objective of industrial peace and maximurrl possible production. The
past record of the employee, the nature of the alleged conduction which
the order of the employer is set aside, the nature of the duties perforn1ed
by .the employee concerned and the nature of the industrial establishment
are some of the broad relevant factors which require to be taken into
-consideration. These factors are merely illusl'rative. Each case bas to be
f decided on its own facts and no hard and fast rule can laid down to ct>ver
generall} all cortceivable contingencies. Proper balance has to be maintained be1-n the coofficting claims of the employer and the employee
without jeopardising the larger interests of industrial peace and progress.
[780 DJ.
There was no evidence to conclude that the management lost confidence
in the wo1kman. If the workman is entitled as a general rule to be reinstated after his wrongful dismissal is set aside apd on the facts if is not
poss;ble to find cogent material on which the establishment can genuinely
be considered to have lost confidence in the integrity of the workman. he
A
'
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PANITOLE TEA ESTATE v. WORKMEN (Dua, J.)
77fJ.
A
1s entitled to be reinstated.
The suggestion that having regard to the
nature oi the p<oceedings against the workman the management has lost
confidence wa$ acceptable. [782 F]
If the workman's dismissal was wrongful then merely because proceedings for ,adjudication of the industrial dispute have taken a long time (I 0
years) was by iti;elf no reason for not directing his reinstatement if it
B
was otherwise justified being in accordance with the normal rule. [782 G]
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1137 of
1970.
•
Appeal by special leave f~om the award. dated qctober 30,
1969 of the Labour Court of Assam ainll D1brugarh m Reference
No. 20 of 1964.
M. C. Chag/a and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.
K. P. Gupta, for the respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by
E
F
G
H
Dua, 1. In this appeal special leave was limited to the question whether relief by way of payment of compensation should
not be substituted for the relief by way of reinstatement granted
by the Labour Court to the workman, H. P. Bhagavati, Store
Clerk.
The Panitole Tea Estate belongs to the Jokai (Assam) Tea
Co., Ltd., Panitole.
Depot Line was one of the Out Gardens
under this Tea Estate and it had a separate godown.
One B. K.
Borgohain, a part-time clerk, was in charge of this godown.
Ammonia sulphate fertiliser w~s stored in this godown, 970 bags
having been received there between December 12, 1960 and
January 5, 1961.
Pursuant to receipt of an anonymous letter
that there was pilferage of these bags the stock was checked and
89 bags were found missing. In the course of the . domestic
enquiry against Borgohain a chit (Ex. 12) ~as produced _by him
which suggested H. P. Bhagavati's collusion with Borgohain in
this affair.
Bhagavati was accordingly also chargesheeted and
after domestic enquiry he was dismissed with effect from March
23, 1961.
This order of dismissal of Bhagavati gave rise to an
industrial dispute which was duly referred to the Labour Court of
Assam at Dibrugarh.
The Labour Court by its
award dated
October 30, 1969 held that the contents of Ex.
12 were too
vague to connect Bhagavati with the offence charged.
According
to the Labour Court the management had procured this exhibit
only to harass Bhagavati for no fault of his.
The domestic
enquiry was also found to be violative of the principle of natural
---
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
justice and it conclusions perverse, there being no evidence to
support them.
Bhagavati was accordingly held entitled to reinstatement with all the back wages and benefits.
The present
appeal is directed against this order and, as observed earlier, the
only question we have to decide is whether Bhagavati should be
reinstated or he should ~ paid compensation instead of reinstatement. The dismissal of Borgohain, it may be pointed out, was
not challenged by him and that order became final.
In this
appeal we are not concerned with his dismissal.
On appeal in 'this Court Shri Cltagla has submitted that the
management has lost confidence in Bhagavati and it would be
unjust and improper to force his reinstatement as a store clerk
on the management after a lapse of ten years.
The learned
counsel offered to pay to the workman any reasonable compensation as may be ordered by this Court.
Reliance in suport of this
submission against the order of reinstatement was placed on two
recent decision of this Court Ruby General ln,surance Co. Ltd.
v. Ciwpra( 1) and Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. A. K. Roy('). In the
firs: case special leave granted . by this Court was also
limited only to the questio,n .whether the relief granted to the
workman concerned should have been reinstatement or compensation.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of that
case this Court had set aside the order of reinstatement and directed the company to pay compensation to the workman concerned.
Our attention has been drawn to some of the observations made
in that case.
This Court said there :
"In the present case we are of the view that 1einstatement directed by the tribunal was inexpedient. The
respondent had served the company in all for a period
of twelve months.
It was not as if he had been induced to give up any employment he was engaged in for
joining the service of the
appellant-company.
The
company's establishment in Delhi was comparatively a
small establishment.
There c.an be no doubt that the
position of a stenographer in such an establishment
· would be one of confidence and trust as he would be
taking down dictation and typing out all kinds of
matters including sometimes
confidential
and
even
secret matters.
For example, a report of the working
of this branch to the company's headquarters by the
branch manager, or a report as regards the working of
other rival insurance companies in Delhi area, or a
report regarding promotion and even demotion of some
of the members of the staff of the branch office, and
such other matters would be of a highly confidential
(lr{l97Jl] 1 L.L.J. 63.
(2) [1970] 1 L.L.J.228.
A
B
c
D
E
F
..
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
PAN!TOLE TEA ESTATE v. WORKMEN (Dua, J.)
777
nature. Ii the branch manager were, for qne reason or
the other to lose confidence and trust in stenographer
working under him, it :would obviously be impossible
for him to give dictation on such matters to such a
stenographer. . On the assumption that the respon·
dent was made to take dictation and type out letters in
~onnexion with other concerns in which the appellantcompany was interested and the respondent was not
paid any extra remuneration for such work, the respon·
dent was, on his admission retaining with him surrepti·
tiously copies of those communications.
As the tribunal has remarked, the respondent did so in order to
preserve evidence that he was made to take do\\jn letters
relating to concerns other than the appellant-company.
Whether in terms of his employment as a stenographer
the regional manager could take such work or not is a
matter in which we need not go, but he did admittedly
retain with him copies of a~ many as 32 such communications which he exhibited as Exs. W. 10 to W. 42.
These copies were clearly the property of the company
which the respondent in no event could retain in his
possession without the consent of his employers. If the
regional manager were to entertain a feeling that, if
reinstated, the respondent would in future also retain
with him copies of documents of a confidential nature
whenever the respondent felt that such retention would
be of use or advantage to him, such a feeling on the
part of the regional manager that he can no longer trust
the respondent with any confidential matter cannot be
regarded as altogether unjustified.
The regional mana·
ger might we!J feel that if the respondent was capable
of collecting evidence against the company, he might in
future collect perhaps evidence of a more dangerous
and harmful nature.
Obviously, if he cannot repose
· confidence in the respondeint, if reinstated, he cannot
make any use of his services, as a stenographer. In
the circumstances, we think that the tribunal ought not
to have directed his ,-.~instatement despite its conclusion
lliat the termination of his services was wrongly made.
but ought lo have
awarded suitable compensation
instead."
In the second case this Court observed :
"The question, however, still is whether the tribunal
H
was, in the circumstances of. the case, justified in
directing reinstatement. It is true that some of the
decisions of this Court have laid down that where the
discharge or dismissal of a workman is not legal or
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971) 3 S.C.R.
justified, the relief which would ordinarily follow would
be reinstatement.
The Tribunal, however, has the discretion to award compensation instead of reinstatement
if the circumstances of a particular case are unusual or
exceptional so as to make reinstatement inexpedient or
improper.
Tne Tribunal has, therefore, to exercise its
discretion judicially al)d in accordance with well recognised principles in that regard and has to examine carefully the circumstances of each case and decide whether
such a case is one of those exceptions to the general
rule. If the Tribunal were to exercise its discretion in
disregard of such circumstances or the principles laid
down by this Court it would be a case either of no
exercise of discretion or of one not legally exercised.
In either case the High Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction can interfere and cannot be content by
simply saying that since the Tribunal has exercised its.
discretion it will not examine the circumstances of the
case to ascertain 1 whether or not such exercise , was properly and in accordance with the well-settled principles
made. If the High Court were to do so, it would be a
refusal on its part to exercise jurisdiction."
And again:
"The Tribunal no doubt felt that it was not established whether the investigation and the report following it were properly done and made, that the company
ought to have disclosed it to the workman and given
him an opportunity to vindicate himself and that the
non-disclosure of the report made the termination illegal and unjustified,
That may or may not be right.
But what was relevant, at the stage when the Tribunal
came to decide what relief the workman was entitled to,
was the ·question whether the management genuinely
apprehended as a result of the report that, it would ~
risky to retain the
workman in the company's
service
They may have gone wrong in the m,anner of terminating the workman's service as held by the Tribunal.
But, if the management truly believed that it was not
possible· to retain the workman in the company's service on grounds of security and consequently could
not place· confidence in him 11ny longer, the present
case would be one of those exceptional cases where the
general rule as to ~instatement could not PT?Perly be
applied.
This of course does not mean that m every
case where the employer says that he has lost .confic
dence in the workman, and, therefore, has terml!lated
his service that reinstatement cannot be granted and the
A
B
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PANITOLE TEA ESTATE V. WORKMEN (D1:1, J.)
779
Tribunal has to award compensation. On the other
hand, if on an examination of all the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal comes to t!le conclusion that the
apprehensions of the employer were genuine and the
employer truly felt that it was hazardous or prejudicial
to the interests of the industry to retain theworkman in his service on grounds of security, the case
would be properly one where compensati<Ji!l would meet
the ends of justice.
On a consideration of all the circumstances, the
present case, in our view, was one such case.
The
Tribunal exercised its discretion mechanically without
w~ghing the circumstances of the case.
That wa.~ no
exercise of discretion at all.
There is ample authority
to the effect that if a statutory tribunal exercises its
Qiscretion on the basis of irrelevant considerations or
without regard to relevant considerations,
certiorari
may properly issue to quash its order.
(See S. A. de
Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (2nd
ed) pp. 324-325.
One such relevant consideration,
the disregard of which would render its order amenable
to interference, would be the well-settled principles laid
down in decisions binding on the Tribunal to whom the
discretion is entrusted.
The refusal by the High Court
to interfere was equally mechanical and amounted to
refusal to exercise its jurisdiction. Its order, therefore, becomes liable to interference."
Shri Chagla has argued that in the present case there was no
exercise of judicial discretion by the Labour Court and the
impugned order was made mechanically without considering the
relevant circumstances and applying its mind to the question as
to which of the two reliefs was more appropriate.
On behalf .of the respondents i( is submitted that Bhagavati,
the workman concerned in this.case, is innocent and the management was found by the Labour Court on evidence
to have
resorted to unfair labour practice.
The chit, Ex. 12, was
also
held not to be in the handwriting of Bhagavati. It is further
emphasised that criminal proceedings were also started against
Bhagavati ·but he was discharged in the criminal case for want of
evidence implicating him.
The respondent's
learned counsel
has,
in support of his submission, drawn our attention to
The
Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Its Workmen( 1), M. L. Bose
& Co. (P) Ltd. v. Its Employees( 2 )
and Workmen of Untied
Bleachers (P) Ltd., v. United Bleachers (P) Ltd.(3), (a decision
by a single Judge of the Madras High Court).
In the Punja.b
[1960] 1 S.C.R. &06
(2) [1961] II L.L.J. 107 (S.C.)
(3) [1968] 1 L.LJ. 529
--~---
780
S.tJP,REME- COURT. REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
National Bank case(1) it was observed that the propriety of teinstatement in a case of wrongful or illegal dismissal is normally a
question of fact and where the industrial tribunal on a proper
consideration of the relevant factors refuses to pass such an order
the Supreme Court would be i:eluctant in the absence of any
general or substantial question of law to interfere under Art. 136
of the Constitution.
According to the counsel where reinstatement has been ordered by the court or tribunal_ in an industrial
dispute arising out of dismissal of a workman this Court should,
in the absence of special circumstances, decline to interfere with
tl::at order on special ieave appeal.
Support from the case of
M. L. Bose & Co. (P) Ltd. (2) is sought for the contention that
reinstatement is the normal rule when dismissal is held to be
wrongful and it is immaterial that the employer has since
employed other workmem..
The case of
United
Bleachers(')
follows the observations of this Court in the case of Punjab
National Bank Ltd.( 1), M. L. Bose_& Co. (P) Ltd.(2)
and
Swadesamitran Ltd. v. Their Workmen (4).
In our opinion the present case is not one in which we would
be justified in interfering on appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution with the order of the Tribunal.
The question ·whether on
. setting aside the worngful dismissal of a workman he should be
reinstated or directed to be paid compensation is a matter within
the Judicial discretion of the Labour Court or the Tribunal, dealing with the industrial dispute, the general rule in the absence of
any special circumstances being of reinstatement; In exercising
this discretion, fairplay towards the employee on the one hand and
interest of the employer, including considerations of discipline in
the establishment, on the other, require to be duly safeguarded.
This is necessary in the interest both of security of tenure of the
employee and of smooth and harmonious, working of the establishment.
Legitimate interests of both of th'em have to be kept in
view if the order is expected to promote the desired objective of
industrial peace and maximum possible production.
The past
record of the employee, the: nature of the alleged conduc_t for
which ac!ion was taken against him, -the grounds on which the
order of the employer is set aside, the n;iture of the duties_ performed by the employee concerned and the nature of the ind!1strial establishment are some of the broad relevant factors which
require to be taken into consideration. The factors just
s~ted
are merely illustrative and it is not possible to exhaustively
enumerate them.
Each case has to be decided .on its own facts
and no hard and fast rule can be laid down to cover generally all
conceivable contingencies.
Proper balance has to be maintained
between the conflicting claims of the employer and the employee
(1) [(19601 I S.C.R.806.
(2) [1961] 2 L.L.J.107
(~.C.).
(3) 1968] 1 L.L.J. 529.
(4) [ 1960] I L.LJ.504.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PANITOLE TEA ESTATE v. WORKMEN (Dua, J.)
78 l
without jeopardising the larger interests of industrial peace and
progress.
In Hindustan Steel Ltd.'s case(.') this Court substituted
the order of reinstatement by an order of payment of compensation on the ground that· the police report and the security officer's
recommendation to the Company showed that it was not desirabl_e
for reasons of security to reinstate the employee.
In that case 1t
was obsery¢d : · ·
"As exceptions to the general rule of reinstatement,
there have been cases where reinstatement has not b~
considered as either desirable or expedient. These were
the cases where there had been strained re1ations betwween the employer and the employee, where the post
held by the aggrieved employee had been one of trust
and confidence or where, though dismissal or discharge
was unsustainable owing to some infirmity in
the
impugned order, the employee was found to have been
guilty of an activity subversive of or prejudicial to the
interests of the industry.
These cases are to be found
in-Assam Oil Co. Ltd. v. Workmen( 2 ); Workmen of
Charo/tar
Gramodhar Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v.
Charottar · Gramodhar
Sahakari
Manda/;
Ltd. (3 );
Doomur Dulung Teq Estate v. Workmen(')) and Ruby
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. P. P. Chopra('). These
are however, illustrative cases where an exception was
made to the general rule.
No hard and fast rule as to
which circumstances would _in a given case constitute an
exception to the general rule can possibly be laid down
as the TriblJillal in each case keeping the objective3 of
industrial adjudication in mind, must in a spirit of fairness and justice confront the question whether the circumstances of the case require that an exception should
be made and compensation would meet the ends of
justice."
The general rule of reinstatement in the absence of special circumstances was also recognised in the case .of Workmen of Assam
Match Co. Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, LabOur Court Assam
&a11r.(6) and has again been affirmed recently in M/s. Tulsidcs
Paul v. The Second Labour Cour~, W.B. & ors.(1). In Messrs
Tu/sidas Pau/( 1) it has been emphasised that no hard and fast
rule as to which circumstances would establish an exception to
the general rule could be laid down and the Tribunal must in
each. case decide the question in a spirit of fairness and justice in
keepmg with the objectives of industrial adjudication.
(!) [1970] l.L.L.J. 288.
(2) (1969) 3 S.C.R. 457.
(3) CA. 382/66 d/14.·8-1967.
(4) C.A. 516(1966 d/26-10-1967
(5) [1970] l.L.LJ.63.
(6) C.As. 1070-1071/1963 d/27-10-64.
(7) C.A. 1607/1966 d/3-2-1971.
--·
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
In the present case Shri Chagla has laid main stress on the·
submission that the management has Jost confidence in Bhagavati's integrity and it w~uld be wholly improper to force his rein~
.statement o~. the mana~ement. The store of which this workman was in, charge, according to the· learned counsel, contains
goods wort~ la~ of 11:1pees and in the .a~sence of the rquisite
confidence m his mtegnty the order of remstatement is likely to
harm the cause of industrial peace in the appellant .concern. The
appellant has expressed willingness to pay any reasonable amount
by way of compensation.
We have 'ln support of the plea of
want.of confidence been.· taken through the correspondence bet·
ween the management and Bhagavati.
From that correspondence we are unable to conclude that the management lost confidence in Bhagavati because of the lapses mentioned therein.
It- appears that it was only when the management suspepted
Bhagavati's collu&ion · with Borgohain that ·the management felt
that his integrity :was questionable. That chit havinfi been found
not to-be in Bh<1gavati's handwriting and Bhagavah's dismissai
having been held to be wrongful we are. unable to sustain the plea
of want of confidence raised by Shri Chagla. It is significant
that no such plea was sought to be substantiated before the
Labour Court.
Jt is undoubtedly true that the store of the Tea
Estate would contain goods of substantial value and a person
really suspected of being untrustworthy may not justifiably" be
forced on the unwilling employer, but that aspect requires determination on facts which should have been properly placed before
the Labour Court and a finding secured after appropriate trial.
The suggestion that having regard to the nature of the pr-:~eedings
against Bhagavati, the management has Jost confidence is
unacceptable.
A similar argument was repell~d in the case of
Assam Match Co.(').
H the workman is. entitled as a general
rule to be reinstated after his wrongful dismissal is-. set aside- and
on the facts it is not possible to find cogent material on which the
establishment can genuinely be considered to have lost confidence
in the integrity of the workman he is entitled to be reinstated. The
next argument that Bhagavati should not be forced on the management after a lapse of ten years is equally unacceptable because
if his dismissal was wrongful then merely because proceedings for
adjudication of the industrial dispute have taken a long time is by
itself no reason for not directing his reinstatement if it is otherwise justified being in accordance with normal rule.
A similar
contention was also repelled in the case of Assam Match Co. ( 1).
In Swadesamitran's case( 2 ) also this Court observed that in the
case of wrongful dismissal, discharge or retrenchment a claim for
reinstatement can'not be defeated merely because time has elapsed or that the employer has engaged fresh hands. We are, there·
fore, unable on the existing record to sustain the appellant's sub-
(ll C.As. 1070-1071/1963d/27-10·64.
(2l [1960] l.L.L.J. 504
A
B
•
. c .
D
E
F
G
H
t
i>ANlfOLE TEA ESTATE I'. WORKMEN (Dua,!.)
783
·' A
mi>sion lhat the order of reinstatement made by the Labour Court
'ulfers from any legal infirmity justifying its substitution by an
order of payment of compensation to the workman. A suggestion has been thrown by Shri Chagla that in all probability the
employee must have secured employment elsewhere as he could
not have remained idle all these years an payme.nt of compenB
sation in place of reinstatement would, therefore, cause kim no
prejudice.
On behalf of the employee it is denied that he had
been employed anywhere else during this period. In out opinion,
this matter being controversial should have been raised before the
Labour Court and we are not in a position to express any opinion
on it in the present proceedings.
C
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
In the circumstances of the case there will be. no order as to costs in this
Court.
Y.P.
Appeal dismissed.
6-LllOOSup.C117l