SHAMBU NATH GOYAL versus BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS

SHAMBU NATH GOYAL versus BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS

The management’s right to adduce additional evidence before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal must be availed at the earliest stage, typically when the written statement of defence is filed. An application made at a late stage, after significant delay and without convincing explanation, should not be allowed. In this case, Sen Gupta was sufficiently constituted as the disciplinary authority, and there is no merit in doubting his authority to dismiss. The Tribunal correctly refused the belated application of the management to adduce evidence nearly 14 years after suspension and 13 years after dismissal.

Parties
Appellant: Shambu Nath Goyal; Respondents: Bank of Baroda and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 September 1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated 16th September, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1407 of 1979
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—sections 10 and 33, Employer’s Right to Adduce Additional Evidence, Domestic Enquiry—authority and Procedure, Reinstatement and Backwages
Labour Law Industrial Law Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—sections 10 and 33 Employer’s Right to Adduce Additional Evidence Domestic Enquiry—authority and Procedure Reinstatement and Backwages

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shambu Nath Goyal

Appellant

Bank of Baroda and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated 16th September, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1407 of 1979

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer has an unfettered right to adduce additional evidence before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal after a delay
  2. 2 Whether the enquiry officer had authority to award punishment of dismissal
  3. 3 Effect of delayed application for adducing evidence by management

Ratio Decidendi

The management’s right to adduce additional evidence before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal must be availed at the earliest stage, typically when the written statement of defence is filed. An application made at a late stage, after significant delay and without convincing explanation, should not be allowed. In this case, Sen Gupta was sufficiently constituted as the disciplinary authority, and there is no merit in doubting his authority to dismiss. The Tribunal correctly refused the belated application of the management to adduce evidence nearly 14 years after suspension and 13 years after dismissal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The judgment of the Delhi High Court is set aside.
  • The award of the Tribunal directing reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and other benefits from the date of suspension is restored.