1969 (12) TMI 108 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the relief to respondent I should have been reinstatement or compensation? Held that - There is no difficulty in holding that the order of reinstatement passed by the Tribunal was liable to be quashed and that the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with it merely on the ground that it could not do so as it was a case where the Tribunal had exercised its discretion. Allow the appeal, quash the order of the Tribunal and the High Court and instead direct the appellant company to pay to the 1st respondent ₹ 3840 as and by way of compensation.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the termination of service.
2. Whether the termination was punitive in nature.
3. Whether reinstatement or compensation was the appropriate relief.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Termination of Service:
The appellant-company terminated the service of respondent 1 based on an adverse police report. The company's practice, established at the instance of the Government of India and the Company's Board of Directors, involved verifying the antecedents of employees through confidential police inquiries. The Industrial Tribunal found that the termination was not the result of victimization or unfair labor practice due to union activities. However, the Tribunal held that the company acted improperly by not disclosing the adverse report to respondent 1, thus denying him an opportunity to contest its contents. The Tribunal concluded that the termination was punitive in nature and disproportionate, rendering it illegal and unjustified.

2. Whether the Termination was Punitive in Nature:
The Tribunal and the High Court both determined that the termination of respondent 1's service was punitive rather than a bona fide exercise of the employer's right to terminate. The Tribunal noted that the non-disclosure of the adverse report and the lack of an opportunity for respondent 1 to vindicate himself made the termination punitive. The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the order was not a simple termination but one that carried punitive implications, thus making it illegal and unjustified.

3. Whether Reinstatement or Compensation was the Appropriate Relief:
The Supreme Court's review was limited to whether the appropriate relief was reinstatement or compensation. The appellant-company argued that reinstatement was inappropriate due to the sensitive nature of respondent 1's position in the blast furnace and the adverse police report. The Court acknowledged that while the general rule for illegal termination is reinstatement, exceptions exist where reinstatement is not expedient or proper. The Tribunal's mechanical exercise of discretion in ordering reinstatement without weighing the specific circumstances was deemed improper. The Court highlighted that the company's genuine apprehension regarding security risks justified compensation over reinstatement. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the Tribunal's reinstatement order and directed the appellant-company to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 3840, equating to two years' salary at the last drawn rate of Rs. 160 per month.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court, and directed the appellant-company to pay compensation to respondent 1. The decision underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances and genuine apprehensions of the employer when determining the appropriate relief in cases of wrongful termination.