HINDUSTAN STEELS LTD., ROURKELA versus A. K. ROY & ORS.

HINDUSTAN STEELS LTD., ROURKELA versus A. K. ROY & ORS.

In cases where the employer genuinely apprehends security risks, and the termination is not due to victimisation or union activities, it is proper for the Tribunal to award compensation instead of reinstatement. Mechanical exercise of discretion without weighing relevant considerations is bad in law and warrants...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Hindustan Steels Ltd., Rourkela; Respondent: A. K. Roy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 December 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Orissa High Court (o.j.c. No. 280 of 1965) by Special Leave, Limited to the Question of Relief—reinstatement or Compensation
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Industrial Tribunal Discretion, Termination of Service, Security of Employment, Article 226, Exercise of Judicial Discretion
Labour Law Constitutional Law Industrial Tribunal Discretion Termination of Service Security of Employment Article 226 Exercise of Judicial Discretion

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hindustan Steels Ltd., Rourkela

Appellant

A. K. Roy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Orissa High Court (o.j.c. No. 280 of 1965) by Special Leave, Limited to the Question of Relief—reinstatement or Compensation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in ordering reinstatement or should have awarded compensation in view of the security-based termination of service.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct in refusing to interfere with the Tribunal's order merely because it was an exercise of discretion.

Ratio Decidendi

In cases where the employer genuinely apprehends security risks, and the termination is not due to victimisation or union activities, it is proper for the Tribunal to award compensation instead of reinstatement. Mechanical exercise of discretion without weighing relevant considerations is bad in law and warrants High Court interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Tribunal and High Court quashed.
  • Appellant company directed to pay respondent Rs. 3840 as compensation.