SHAMBHU NATH GOYAL Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no dissent from the judgment prepared by my learned brother Varadarajan, J. and I concur in the same. This short epilogue is provoked by one statement made in the judgment in Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co Ltd., (1979) 3 SCR 1165 : (AIR 1979 SC 1652) which was relied upon by Mr. Damania, learned counsel for the respondents to support the decision of the High Court. The statement relied upon by Mr. Damania may be properly understood so that in future the meaning of the statement may not remain obscure resulting in a fresh round of litigation commencing from Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Jai Singh, (1962) 3 SCR 684 and ending with a decision in Shankar Chakravarti's case.

(2.) At the outset it is necessary to extract the passage relied upon by Mr. Damania in support of his submission that if the employer makes an application to the Labour Court /Industrial Tribunal that in the event the domestic enquiry is found to be either improper, invalid or vitiated, the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal should accept the application of the employer and give it an opportunity to substantiate the charges imputing misconduct and leading to the termination of the service of the workman. The passage reads as under :

(3.) In the facts of the present case, there is hardly any explanation for the delay in making the application and therefore, the High Court was in error in remitting the case to the Labour Court. Accordingly this appeal must succeed and therefore, I concur in the final order proposed by my learned brother Varadarajan, J.