Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5701 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 26629/2014)

       SHRI TALUKDAR SINGH                                   ...Appellant

Versus

TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. Ltd.                      ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J  .                       

Leave granted.

2.         This appeal arises out of the order passed by the High

Court  of  Bombay  in  Writ  Petition  No.3646  of  2001  dated

19.06.2014,  in  and  by  which,  the  High  Court  enhanced  the

retrenchment compensation of Rs.6,049/- awarded by the Labour

Court to Rs. 1,00,000/- without any interest.  

3.    A charge-sheet dated 07.05.1988 was issued to the

appellant for committing the misconduct of slapping his colleague,

1

Page 2

2

Mr. Kunjumon who was working with the respondent-company. An

enquiry was conducted against the appellant and the services of

the  appellant  were  terminated  on  07.05.1990.  The  appellant

challenged his termination and a reference was made to the Labour

Court, Pune. By the award dated 28.02.2000, Labour Court held

that the enquiry against the appellant was fair and proper and the

misconduct was proved.  However, the Labour Court held that the

punishment  of  dismissal  from  service  was  shockingly

disproportionate  and  awarded  retrenchment  compensation  of

Rs.6,049/- to the appellant.  Being aggrieved,  the appellant  filed

writ  petition  contending  that  the  punishment  of  dismissal  was

harsh  and  that  the  retrenchment  compensation  of  Rs.  6,049/-

awarded was no compensation at all. By the impugned judgment,

the  High  Court  while  upholding  the  punishment  of  dismissal,

enhanced  the  compensation  to  Rs.1,00,000/-  minus

Rs.6,049/- which was already paid to the appellant. Still aggrieved,

the appellant has preferred this appeal.  

4.     We have heard Mr.  S.  Ravi  Shankar,  the learned

counsel for the appellant and the Learned Senior Counsel   Mr.

2

Page 3

3

C.U.  Singh,  appearing  for  the  respondent-management  and

perused the impugned judgment and material on record.

5.     The short question is whether the compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/-  awarded  by  the  High  Court  is  to  be  enhanced.

Appellant  who  was  an  ex-serviceman  was  employed  with  the

respondent-company  as  a  Turner  in  the  Auto  Division  w.e.f.

09.01.1978 drawing monthly wage of Rs.2,621/- and he worked till

he was terminated on 07.05.1990.  It is seen from the record that

Mr.  Kunjumon  used  harsh  words  and  shoved  the  appellant

towards  the  door  and  evidence  would  show  that  it  was  not  a

premeditated attack on Mr. Kunjumon.  Both the Labour Court as

well as the High Court recorded concurrent findings of fact that the

misconduct  of  the  appellant  was  proved  on  the  basis  of  the

evidence  and  that  the  punishment  of  dismissal  was  shockingly

disproportionate. When the Labour Court passed the award, the

appellant  was about       59 years  and he  attained  the  age  of

superannuation in the year 2002. Considering the number of years

which the appellant worked with the respondent and the facts and

circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of

3

Page 4

4

justice  would  be  met  if  the  compensation  of  Rs.1,00,000/-  is

enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- which is inclusive of the compensation

awarded by the High Court. The judgment of Bombay High Court is

accordingly  modified  and  the  compensation  is  enhanced  to

Rs.5,00,000/- which shall be payable by the respondent within a

period of eight weeks and in the event of default the same shall be

payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and the appeal is partly

allowed. No order as to costs.  

…………………………J.        (T.S. THAKUR)

…………………………J.                    (V.GOPALA GOWDA)

…………………………J.            (R. BANUMATHI)

New Delhi; July 24, 2015

4

Page 5

5

ITEM NO.1H-For Judgment        COURT NO.2               SECTION XV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A. No. 5701/2015 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)   No(s).  26629/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19/06/2014 in WP No. 3646/2001 passed by the High Court Of Bombay) TALUKDAR SINGH                                     Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD            Respondent(s) Date : 24/07/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of  JUDGMENT today. For Petitioner(s)    Mr. S. Ravi Shankar,Adv.                       For Respondent(s)  Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Adv.  Mr. Aman Singh, Adv.  Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv.  Mrs. Manik Karanjawala

                    For M/s. Karanjawala & Co.                

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi pronounced the judgment of  the  Bench  comprising  Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  T.S.  Thakur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi.

Leave granted. The  appeal  is  partly  allowed  in  terms  of  the  Signed

Reportable Judgment.  

  (VINOD KR.JHA)                      (VEENA KHERA)   COURT MASTER              COURT MASTER

5

Page 6

6

   (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)

6