D. C. ROY versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL COURT, INDORE AND OTHERS

D. C. ROY versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL COURT, INDORE AND OTHERS

The appellant, having acted dishonestly in connection with the business of the Corporation, is clearly guilty of major misconduct under Standing Order 12(b). Where the domestic enquiry is held vitiated but evidence is adduced before the Labour Court justifying dismissal, the Labour Court's order relates back to the date of original dismissal. The appellant is not entitled to back wages.

Parties
Appellant: D.C. Roy; Respondents: The Presiding Officer, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Court, Indore and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 March 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment in Misc. Petition No. 75 of 1968
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dismissal of Employee, Domestic Enquiry, Back Wages, Natural Justice, Major Misconduct
Labour Law Dismissal of Employee Domestic Enquiry Back Wages Natural Justice Major Misconduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.C. Roy

Appellant

The Presiding Officer, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Court, Indore and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment in Misc. Petition No. 75 of 1968

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the appellant amounted to major misconduct under Standing Order 12(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963
  2. 2 Whether order of dismissal, held justified on evidence before the Labour Court after setting aside the domestic enquiry, related back to the original date of dismissal and thus appellant was entitled to back wages

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, having acted dishonestly in connection with the business of the Corporation, is clearly guilty of major misconduct under Standing Order 12(b). Where the domestic enquiry is held vitiated but evidence is adduced before the Labour Court justifying dismissal, the Labour Court's order relates back to the date of original dismissal. The appellant is not entitled to back wages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs