state of tamilnadu

Vs.

s. SUBRAMANIAN [1997(3)LLN 276 SC-DB]

EXTENT OF POWERS OF THE HIGHCOURTS IN  INTERFERING IN DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

A JUDICIAN REVIEW BY A HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 IS NOT AN APPEAL. INSTEAD, IT IS ONLY A REVIEW OF THE  MANNER IN WHICH THE DECISION IS MADE AND NOT A REVIEW OF THE MERITS OF THE CASE. WHEN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL’S FINDINGS ARE BASED ON SOME FACTS, THE HIGHCOURT CANNOT EXAMINE THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINDINGS.  WHILE THE SUPREME COURT ENJOYS WIDE APPELLATE POWERS UNDER ARTICLE 136 TO EXAMINE THE MERITS AS WELL AS PROCEDURE, THE HIGH COURT HAS ONLY REVIEW POWERS.

APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL

vs.

AK CHOPRA [1999(I) LL1 962 SC-DB]

EXTENT AND SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURTS IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION MATTERS IN WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226

DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITIES  MUST BE THE SOLE JUDGE OF FACTS. FINDINGS BASED ON APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH BY WRIT COURTS, UNLESS SUCH FINDINGS ARE BASED ON NO EVIDENCE OR FINDINGS ARE WHOLLY PERVERSE.  aDEQUACY OF EVIDENCE CANNOT BE CANVASSED BEFORE HIGH COURTS.  HIGH COURTS SHOULD NOT SUBSTITUTE THE PUNISHMENTS UNLESS THE PUNISHMENT IS SHOCKINGLY DISPROPORTIONATE OR SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE.

state OF KARNATAKA

vs.

h. nagaraj [1999(i) ll1 1124 sc-db)

EXTENT and scope of powers of administrative tribunals to examine the proportionality of punishments awarded by disciplinary authorities.

[this is a case on sexual harassment where supreme court has directed that lower courts should take a serious view of such offences and not order reduced punishments].

quoting the earlier supreme court judgements in union of india Vs. parmananda [1989-ii ll1-57] and union of india vs. ganayutham [jt 1997(7) sc 572]  held :

if there has been an enquiry consistent with rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice, what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent disciplinary authority.  The principles of proportionalITy of punishment can be invoked only in cases where the punishment was totally irrational or is an outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards.

[note : it may be noted that under section 11a, the labour courts have powers to reduce punishments] 

union of india

Vs.

dinanath shantaram [1998(2) ll1 748 sc-db]

DOES A SHOWCASE NOTICE/ TERMINATION ORDER BECOME EFFECTIVE ON ITS DESPATCH BY POST OR ONLY ON ITS RECEIPT BY THE EMPLOYEE?

while a show-cause notice would be effective only on its actual receipt, a termination order becomes effective as soon as it is put in transmission (on posting).

PUNJAB DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

vS.

KALA SINGH [1997 LIC 2649 SC-DB]

labour court after recording that the domestic enquiry is defective asked parties to adduce fresh evidence. thereafter upholding that the termination is in order. what is the effective date of termination - the original date of termination by employer or date of upholding by labour court ?

even though domestic  enquiry procedure was held to be not proper, if subsequently termination is upheld, the effective date would be the original date of termination, and not the subsequent date of upholding by court.