Legal Dispute Resolution for Employment Matter Involving High Court and Labour Court

Delve into the intricate legal proceedings surrounding the employment matter, as the High Court and Labour Court navigate through the case. Discover the nuances of this complex legal battle as it unfolds, shedding light on the challenges faced by all parties involved.


  • The appellant failed to produce 544 original vouchers for verification.
  • The Labour Court provided opportunities for cross-examination, but proceedings were delayed due to adjournments sought by the first respondent.
  • The findings in the impugned order regarding wilful absence leading to dismissal were considered tentative and not final.
  • The Division Bench directed the appellant to adduce evidence before the Labour Court.
  • The second order of dismissal in 2013 was commented on by the Division Bench, stating it should not have been passed considering pending criminal cases.
  • The legality of the second dismissal order was not specifically clarified by the Division Bench.
  • The Single Judge held the dismissal based on the inquiry report in 2013 was illegal and unconstitutional due to lack of opportunity for defense.
  • The High Court’s orders directed to conclude the inquiry proceedings within four months.
  • The High Court quashed the first dismissal order of 2003 and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for further proceedings.
  • The High Court upheld the quashing of the second dismissal order in 2013 related to embezzlement charges.
  • The first respondent filed numerous cases leading to conflicting orders in different instances.
  • Writ Petition No 9480 of 2013 allowed by Single Judge on 23 May, 2014, detailed findings on first inquiry
  • Order dated 29 May, 2013 by Labour Court was interim order, issue of wilful absence left open
  • Division Bench of High Court upheld Single Judge’s order on 18 January, 2010
  • First respondent filed Writ Petition No 8611 of 2007, directions given for completion of inquiry within 4 months
  • Order dated 25 October, 2013 dismissing first respondent, ex parte order of removal from service on 3 January, 2003
  • Inquiry report of 28 May, 2012 found all charges proved, disciplinary proceedings recommenced
  • First respondent filed Writ Petition No 5205 of 2016 against Labour Court’s order dated 5 November, 2015
  • Criminal prosecutions pending for periods between 1995-1998, 1998-2001 and 2000-2002
  • First charge sheet served on 10 October, 2002, second charge sheet served on 23 November, 2002 for wilful absence
  • Civil suit instituted with interim order restraining proceedings except for charge of wilful absence
  • Departmental appeals dismissed, no statutory appeal against dismissal dated 25 October, 2013
  • Arrest of first respondent stayed in fourth criminal case through Civil Writ Petition No 8 of 2015

Also Read: Tower Infotech Ltd. Bail Order Appeal


  • The High Court should not have directed continuation and conclusion of the departmental proceedings after the dismissal order of January 3, 2003.
  • The Division Bench and Single Judge made an erroneous comment on the enquiry report and the second dismissal order of October 25, 2013.
  • If proceedings are recommenced, the first respondent can raise objections to the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority.
  • Disciplinary authority has the right to rectify mistakes and proceed according to the law.
  • Findings and observations in the impugned orders do not restrict the disciplinary authority from examining the charges and making a decision.
  • The Judge’s comments were based on interim orders and not on the merits of the charge of wilful absence.
  • The second dismissal order should have been set aside due to the existence of two dismissal orders, allowing for recommencement of proceedings in the embezzlement charge-sheet if the first dismissal order is overturned.
  • An employee who has already been dismissed from service cannot be imposed any other penalty after the conclusion of the inquiry pertaining to the charge-sheet dated 6-7-1988.
  • The Labour Court has upheld the first order of dismissal dated 3 January, 2003
  • The first respondent has challenged the dismissal order and the matter is pending before the Tribunal
  • If the dismissal is set aside and the first respondent is reinstated, the employer-employee relationship will be restored
  • The appellant can proceed with the inquiry of charge-sheet dated 6-7-1988 if the first respondent is reinstated

Also Read: Priority of Employees’ Dues in Asset Sale: SARFAESI Act vs. Land Revenue Code


  • The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order which only reduced the quantum of costs.
  • No comments have been made on the merits of the dispute between the parties.
  • The first dismissal order dated 3 January, 2003 will be valid and continue as directions and findings unless set aside and quashed.
  • The Labour Court is directed to proceed in the matter and record findings on merits.
  • The writ petition will be decided by the learned Single Judge on merits without being influenced by the impugned orders under challenge in the present appeal.
  • There will be no order as to costs in the given facts of the case.

Also Read: Landmark Judgement on Consumer Rights in Healthcare Sector


Case Number: C.A. No.-005919-005920 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *