H.S Chandra Shekara Chari v. Divisional Controller, Ksrtc And Another, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, a workman, was dismissed from service by the respondent-management on 30 July 1988. Challenging the dismissal, he invoked Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Karnataka Amendment Act, 1987). On 1 August 1994, the Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry, though validly conducted, had not proved the charges. Concluding that the dismissal amounted to victimisation and was “harsh,” the Labour Court set aside the dismissal order, directed reinstatement with continuity of service, and awarded full back wages from the date of dismissal.

The respondent-management filed a writ petition before the High Court. A learned Single Judge, without re-appraising the evidence, upheld reinstatement but curtailed back wages, reasoning that “with better proof the charges could have been established” and noting the workman’s record of 40 prior similar incidents. The Division Bench dismissed the workman’s writ appeal on limitation and, briefly, on merits.

The matter reached the Supreme Court by way of special leave. After hearing counsel, the Court issued the present judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the High Court’s Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in reducing back wages after accepting that the Labour Court’s finding on non-proof of charges should not be re-appraised.

Whether speculative reasoning—that the charges “could have been established with better proof”—can justify modification of a Labour Court’s award once the charges are held unproved.

Whether the Division Bench rightly affirmed the Single Judge’s order while dismissing the appeal on limitation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court noted that the Labour Court had made two clear findings: (1) the domestic enquiry was proper; and (2) the management failed to prove the misconduct, rendering the dismissal unjust and amounting to victimisation. Once these findings stood, the normal consequence was reinstatement with appropriate reliefs, including back wages.

The Single Judge expressly declined to re-appraise evidence yet reduced back wages on the speculative ground that “with better proof the charges could have been established.” The Supreme Court held this approach impermissible for three reasons:

Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act does not empower a court to speculate about evidence that was never produced.

Courts or quasi-judicial authorities cannot deny relief on conjecture; if “better proof” existed, the management should have adduced it. Failure to do so raises a presumption adverse to the management.

By modifying the award without re-appraising evidence, the Single Judge contradicted his own premise that he would not interfere with factual findings.

The Division Bench’s summary endorsement of the Single Judge’s speculative reasoning was equally unsustainable.

Given these errors, the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court’s Single Judge for a fresh hearing on the writ petition. To protect the workman during the remand period, the Court directed the management to:

Reinstate the appellant forthwith in his original post,

Pay all arrears of salary and allowances within three months, and

Continue paying monthly salary as it becomes due during the pendency of the writ petition.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: The judgments of the High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) are set aside; the case is remanded to the Single Judge for fresh disposal. The appellant is to be reinstated, paid arrears within three months, and continue to receive salary during the writ proceedings.

Implications: The decision reinforces that once a competent tribunal finds charges unproved, higher courts cannot speculate about hypothetical evidence to dilute relief. The ruling safeguards workmen from conjectural reduction of back wages and underscores proper appellate standards under the Industrial Disputes Act. No new legal precedent was set, but the Court clarified limits on judicial interference with Labour Court findings.

H.S Chandra Shekara Chari v. Divisional Controller, Ksrtc And Another

S. Saghir Ahmad, J.— Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant was dismissed from service by the respondent by order dated 30-7-1988 which was challenged before the Labour Court and the Labour Court by its award dated 1-8-1994, directed as under:

“Claim statement filed by the first party workman under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Karnataka Amendment Act, 1987), for his reinstatement in service with continuity and for back wages is allowed and is accepted. The second party Management is not justified in dismissing the first party workman from service on 30-7-1988. The order of dismissal of the first party workman from service, dated 30-7-1988 passed by the second party Management is set aside. The second party Management is directed to reinstate the first party workman in service to his original post and there shall be continuity of service of the first party workman under the second party Management. The first party workman is also entitled to the back wages from the date of dismissal, i.e, 30-7-1988, till the date of passing his award. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.”

4. This order was passed by the Labour Court as it was found that the charges against the appellant were not proved. The relevant finding of the Labour Court is as under:

“From the available materials it is seen that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and the Management is guilty of victimising the first party workman, and as such, interference by this Court is necessary. The first party workman has succeeded in showing and proving that the order of dismissal passed against him is unjust and improper.”

5. While recording its finding on Issue 3, the Labour Court further observed as under:

“From the available materials it is seen that second party Management has failed to prove the charges levelled against the first party workman and has failed to establish the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the first party workman. When the second party Management has failed to prove the charges levelled against the first party workman, then it is to be held that the punishment inflicted on the first party workman by the second party Management, namely, the dismissal of the first party workman from service, amounts to harsh punishment and it suggests victimisation of the first party workman.”

6. A perusal of the award further shows that Issue 1 which was to the following effect:

“Where the second party proves that it had conducted a proper and valid enquiry for the misconduct of the first party?”

was decided in the affirmative on 4-12-1993. The finding on this issue is not available to us as it has not been made part of the award nor has any counsel filed a copy of that finding either with the special leave petition or with the counter-affidavit. We, therefore, proceed on the basis that it was found as a fact by the Labour Court that the respondents had conducted a proper and valid enquiry. Whether in that enquiry the charges were established or proved has been answered by the Labour Court while dealing with other issues. We have already reproduced above the relevant portion of the finding of the Labour Court.

7. The respondents challenged the findings and the award of the Labour Court in a writ petition in the High Court and the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 24-7-1996 observing as under:

“As the Labour Court has reappreciated the evidence and come to the conclusion regarding the charge, I find that a reappraisal of the evidence is not called at this stage.

The only question that now survives is regarding the quantum of punishment to be imposed. The award of the Labour Court states that the worker be ordered to be reinstated. That part of the award need not be disturbed. Besides, the Labour Court has awarded full back wages to the worker from the date of dismissal. This perhaps is not correct. It is not as if that the worker was totally innocent and he was illegally terminated. The facts in this case clearly show that with better proof the charges could have been established. If so, the worker cannot be rewarded with full back wages. Besides, he has a record of 40 previous similar conducts.

Hence the order of dismissal of the workman from service is set aside and the Management is directed to reinstate the workman in service to his original post with continuity of service. A portion of the back wages must be disallowed to him by way of punishment.”

The writ appeal filed by the appellant against the above order was dismissed by the Division Bench on the ground of limitation. The Division Bench, however, observed as under:

“We have examined the appeal on merits also. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is also dismissed.”

8. The judgments passed by the learned Single Judge as also by the Division Bench, which summarily dismissed the writ appeal, cannot be sustained for the simple reason that while the Labour Court, after holding that the charges against the appellant were not established, proceeded to direct reinstatement with back wages, the Single Judge, while refusing to go into the appreciation of evidence, considered only one question, namely, the question relating to the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the appellant. The learned Single Judge observed:

“It is not as if that the worker was totally innocent and that he was illegally terminated. The facts of this case clearly show that with better proof the charges could have been established.”

9. It was for this reason that full back wages were not awarded to the appellant. Once the Tribunal had found that the charges against the appellant were not established, it was not open to the learned Single Judge, who had rightly refused to reappraise the evidence, to say that with better proof the charges could have been established. The learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction, not even under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to enter into the question whether the charges could have been established by better or further evidence. That is not the function of the court or any quasi-judicial authority. If it is found as a fact that the charges are not established, then the necessary consequences have to follow and, as a corollary thereto, appropriate orders are to be passed. There may be circumstances justifying non-payment of full back wages, but they cannot be denied for the reason that the charges could have been established with better proof. If “better proof” was available with the Management and it was not furnished or produced before the Court, a presumption would arise that such proof, if furnished, would have gone against the Management. We are surprised that the view propounded by the learned Single Judge, which falls in the realm of speculation, has been upheld by the Division Bench.

10. In this situation, therefore, we remand the whole case back to the learned Single Judge to rehear it on merits, subject to the condition that in compliance with the award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant shall be put back to duty and all the arrears of salary and allowances shall be paid to him within three months and during the pendency of the writ petition the monthly salary shall continue to be paid to the appellant as and when it falls due.

11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Civil Appeal No. 2457 of 1999, decided on March 30, 1999

H.S Chandra Shekara Chari v. Divisional Controller, Ksrtc And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications