Labour Court Must Follow Proper Inquiry Process: Supreme Court Remands Case on Security Guard’s Termination

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Kurukshetra University vs. Prithvi Singh, dealt with a significant issue regarding the termination of a daily wage security guard accused of misconduct. The case raised crucial questions on the role of Labour Courts in determining the validity of termination orders based on alleged misconduct and the need for proper inquiry processes. The ruling highlighted the necessity of ensuring compliance with Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates the consideration of fairness in termination procedures.

Background of the Case

The case pertained to Kurukshetra University, which employed Prithvi Singh as a security guard on a daily wage basis. On August 18, 1999, he was accused of misbehaving with a female research scholar at the university. Following this allegation, a departmental inquiry was initiated, and the inquiry officer found him guilty of misconduct.

Based on this finding, the university terminated Prithvi Singh’s services on March 30, 2000, arguing that since he was a daily wager, no formal disciplinary inquiry was required. Aggrieved by his termination, Singh raised an industrial dispute, leading to a reference before the Labour Court, Ambala, under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Key Legal Issues Considered

Whether a daily wage worker who has worked for 240 days in a calendar year is entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether the university was obligated to conduct a proper departmental inquiry before terminating the respondent.
Whether the Labour Court correctly applied legal principles in holding the termination to be an illegal retrenchment.
Whether the High Court erred in affirming the Labour Court’s decision without addressing fundamental legal issues.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s (Kurukshetra University) Arguments

Prithvi Singh was employed as a daily wage worker for short-term durations of 89 days at a time, and therefore, he did not qualify as a permanent workman under the Industrial Disputes Act.
As a daily wager, he was not entitled to the procedural safeguards under the Act, including a full-fledged departmental inquiry.
The departmental inquiry conducted by the university was adequate, and the findings of misconduct justified the termination.
The Labour Court and the High Court failed to recognize that Singh’s dismissal was based on misconduct rather than retrenchment.

Respondent’s (Prithvi Singh) Arguments

He had completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year, making him eligible for protection under the Industrial Disputes Act.
The departmental inquiry conducted was unfair and did not adhere to principles of natural justice.
His termination amounted to illegal retrenchment as it did not comply with procedural requirements, including notice and compensation.
The Labour Court’s decision to reinstate him was justified, as there was no proper inquiry before his dismissal.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the proceedings of the Labour Court and the High Court. The Court emphasized:

“Neither the Judge of the Labour Court nor the Judges of the High Court applied their judicial mind while deciding the issues arising in the case and completely ignored the settled legal principles which are applicable.”

The Court further elaborated on the necessity of following proper procedures in dismissal cases:

“When a domestic inquiry has been held by the management and the management relies on the same, it is open to the latter to 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.”

Final Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Labour Court.
The case was remanded to the Labour Court for a fresh decision.
The university was directed to be given an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the misconduct alleged against Singh.
The Labour Court was instructed to re-examine whether the dismissal was justified or if a lesser punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act should be imposed.
The university was directed to appear before the Labour Court on March 5, 2018, and the respondent was to be issued a fresh notice.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling sets an important precedent in employment and labour law. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that:

Labour Courts must first examine the validity of departmental inquiries before deciding the legality of terminations.
Daily wage workers can claim protections under the Industrial Disputes Act if they meet the 240-day threshold.
Termination based on misconduct must follow due process, including a fair inquiry and adherence to natural justice principles.
Judicial scrutiny is necessary in labour disputes to prevent wrongful dismissals and ensure compliance with labour laws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a landmark ruling emphasizing due process in labour disputes. It reinforces the principle that employers must follow proper procedures before terminating employees, even those on daily wages. By remanding the case, the Court has ensured that both parties have a fair opportunity to present their case before the Labour Court, setting a precedent for fair adjudication in employment-related matters.

Petitioner Name: Kurukshetra University
Respondent Name: Prithvi Singh
Judgment By: Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment Date: 15-02-2018

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Kurukshetra Universi vs Prithvi Singh Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-02-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category