Appeal No 166 NL of 1983
the Award dated 1941982 of the Labour Court Haryana at Faridabad in Reference No 227 of 198 1
RK Jain RP Singh Aseem Malhotra Ashish Verma Manoj Goel RK Khanna and Ms Abha R Sharma for the Appellant
Dr Anand Prakash Ghosh for Ms Fox Mandal  Co and Som Mandal for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K RAMASWAMY J
This appeal by special leave is against the award of the Labour Court Haryana at Faridabad dated April 19 1982 which was published in the State Gazette on August 10 1982It upheld the termination of the appellant s service as legal and valid
The respondent by its letter dated December 12 1980 which was received by the appellant on December 19 1980 intimated that the appellant wilfully absented from duty continuously for more than 8 days from December 3 1980 without leave or prior information or intimation or previous permission from the management and therefore deemed to have left the service of the company on your own account and lost your lien and the appointment with effect from December 3 1980
 In support thereof reliance was placed on clause 13 2 iv of its Certified Standing Order
The appellant averred that despite his reporting to duty on December 3 1980 and everyday continuously thereafter he was prevented entry at the gate and he was not allowed to sign the attendance register
He pleaded that he was not permitted to join duty without assigning any reasons
His letter of December 3 1980 was marked herein as Annexure A  wherein he explained the circumstances in which he was prevented to join duty
The Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to prove his case
The action of the respondent is in accordance with the standing Orders and it is not a termination nor retrenchment under the for short the Act 
The appellant in terms of standing orders lost his lien on his appointment and so is not entitled to reinstatement
Clause 13 2 iv standing order reads thus If a workman remains absent without sanctioned leave or beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended he shall lose his lien on his 936 appointment unless
a he returns within 3 calander days of the commencement of the absence of the expiry of leave originally granted or subsequently extended as the case may be and b explains to the satisfaction of the managermanagement the reason of his absence o r his inability to return on the expiry of the leave as the case may
The workman not reporting for duty within 8 calander days as mentioned above shall be deemed to have automatically abandoned the services and lost his lien on his appointment
His name shall be struck off from the Muster Rolls in such an eventuality
 A reading thereof does indicate that if a workman remains absent without sanction of leave or beyond the period of the leave originally granted or subsequently extended the employee loses his lien on employment unless he returns to duty within eight calander days of the commencement of the absence or the expiry of leave either originally granted or subsequently extended
He has to give a satisfactory explanation to the ManagerManagement of his reasons for absence or inability to return to the duty on the expiry of the leave
On completion of eight calander days  absence from duty he shall be deemed to have abandoned the services and lost his lien on his appointment
Thereafter the management has been empowered to strike off the name from the Muster Rolls
Section 2oo of the Act defines Retrenchment  means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include a voluntary retirement of the workman or b retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf or c termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill health
 Section 25F prescribes mandatory procedure to be followed before the retrenchment becomes valid and legal and violation thereof visits with invalida 937 tion of the action with consequential results
In Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd Chandigarh vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Chandigarh and Ors the Constitution Bench considered the scope of the word retrenchment  defined by s2oo and held in para 71 at page 716 that analysing the definition of retrenchment in Section 2oo we find that termination by the employer of the service of a workman would not otherwise have covered the cases excluded in Clauses a and b namely voluntary retirement and retirement on reaching the stipulated age of retirement or on the grounds of continued ill health
There would be no violational element of the employer
Their express exclusion implies that those would otherwise have been included
In para 77 at page 719 it was further held that right of the employer and the contract of employment has been effected by introducing Section 2oo
The contention of the management to terminate the service of an employee under the certified standing Orders and under the contracts of employment was negatived holding that the right of the management has been effected by introduction of section 2oo and section 25F of the Act
The second view was that the right as such has not been effected or taken away but only an additional social obligation has been imposed on the employer to abide by the mandate of section 25F of the Act to tide over the financial difficulty which subserves the social policy
This court relied on the maxim Stat pro ratione valuntas populi the will of the people stands in place of a reason
In paragraph 82 at page 722 this court concluded that the definition in s2oo of the Act of retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever except those expressly excluded in the section
Same view was taken by three benches of three Judges of this Court in State Bank of India vs Sri N Sundara Mani   Delhi Cloth  General Mills Lid
vs Shambhu Nath Mukherjee  Ors  and Hindustan Steel Ltd vs The Presiding Officer
Labour Court  and two benches of two judges in Robert D Souza vs Executive Engineer Southern Railway and Anr  and H D Singh vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors
1985 4 SCC 201 took the same view
Therefore we find force in the contention of Sri R K lain the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the definition retrenchment  in S2oo is a comprehensive one intended to cover any action of the management to put an end to the employment of an employee for any reason whatsoever
We need not however rest our conclusion on this point as in our considered view it could be decided on the other contention raised by Sri Jain that the order is violative of the principles of natural justice
We are impressed with that argument
Before dealing with it it is necessary to dispose of inter related contentions raised by Dr Anand Prakash
938 The contention of Dr Anand Prakash that since this appeal was deleted from the constitution bench to be dealt with separately the finding of the constitution bench deprived the respondent of putting forth the contention based on Cl 13 of the certified standing order to support impugned action and the respondent is entitled to canvass afresh the correctness of the view of the constitution bench is devoid of force
It is settled law that an authoritative law laid after considering all the relevant provisions and the previous precedents it is no longer open to be recanvassed the same on new grounds or reasons that may be put forth in its support unless the court deemed appropriate to refer to a larger bench in the larger public interest to advance the cause of justice
The constitution bench in fact went into the self same question vis a vis the right of the employer to fall back upon the relevant provision of the certified standing Orders to terminate the service of the workmanemployee
By operation of section 2oo the right of the employer under Cl132 iv and the contract of employment has been effected
Moreover in Ambika Prasad Mishra vs State of UP and Ors
  at 72 23 para 5  6
A constitution bench held that every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent
It does not lose its authority merely  because it was badly argued inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned
In that case the ratio of this court on article 31A decided by 13 Judges bench in Keshwanand Bharti vs Union of India 1973 Suppl
SCR was sought to be reopened but this court negatived the same
His contention that expiry of eight days  absence from duty brings about automatic loss of lien on the post and nothing more need be done by the management to pass an order terminating the service and per force termination is automatic bears no substance
The constitution bench specifically held that the right of the employer given under the standing Orders gets effected by statutory operation
In Robert D  Souza s case supra in para 7 this court rejected the contention that on expiry of leave the termination of service is automatic and nothing further could be done
It was further held that striking of the name from the rolls for unauthorised absence from duty amounted to termination of service and absence from duty for 8 consequitive days amounts to misconduct and termination of service on such grounds without complying with minimum prin ciples of natural justice would not be justified
In Shambhunath s case three Judges bench held that striking of the name of the workman for absence of leave itself amounted to retrenchment
In HD Singh vs Reserve Bank of India  Ors
supra this court held that striking of the name from the rolls amounts to an arbitrary action
In State Bank of India vs Workmen of State Bank of India and Anr1991 1 SCC 13 a two judge bench of this court to which one of us KRSJ was a member was to consider the effect of discharge on one month s notice or pay in 939 lieu thereof
It was held that it was not a discharge simplicitor or a simple termination of service but one camouflaged for serious misconduct
This court lifted the veil and looked beyond the apparent tenor of the order and its effect
It was held that the action was not valid in law
The principle question is whether the impugned action is violative of principles of natural justice
In AK Kriapak and Ors
vs Union of India  Ors a Constitution bench of this court held that the distinction between quasi judicial and administrative order has gradually become thin
Now it is totally clipsed and obliterated
The aim of the rule of the natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice
These rules operate in the area not covered by law validly made or expressly excluded as held in Col JN Sinha vs Union of India  Anr
1971 1 SCR 791
It is settled law that certified standing orders have statutory force which do not expressly exclude the application of the principles of natural justice
Conversely the Act made exceptions for the application of principles of natural justice necessary implication from specific provisions in the Act like Ss25F 25FF 25FFF etc the need for temporary hands to cope with sudden and temporary spurt of work demands appointment temporarily to a service of such temporary workmen to meet such exigencies and as soon as the work or service are completed the need to dispense with the services may arise
In that situation on compliance of the provisions of section 25F resort could be had to retrench the employees in conformity therewith particular statute or statutory rules or orders having statutory flavour may also exclude the application of the principles of natural justice expressly or by necessary implication
In other respects the principles of natural justice would apply unless the employer should justify its exclusion on given special and exceptional exigencies
The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind in every case is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly justly reasonably and impartially
It is not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly namely  the procedure adopted must be just fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case
In other words application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority to act arbitrarily effecting the rights of the concerned person
940 It is a fundamental rule of law that no decision must be taken which will affect the right of any person without first being informed of the case and be given him her an opportunity of putting forward hisher case
An order involving civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice
In Mohinder Singh Gill  Anr
vs The Chief Election Commissioner  Ors
at 308F the Constitution Bench held that civil consequence  covers infraction of not merely property or personal right but of civil liberties material deprivations and non pecuniary damages
In its comprehensive connotion every thing that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence
Black s Law Dictionary 4th Edition page 1487 defined civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country they include rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action
In State of Orissa vs Dr Miss Binapani Dei  Ors this court held that even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice
The person concerned must be informed of the case the evidence in support thereof supplied and must be given a fair opportunity to meet the case before an adverse decision is taken
Since no such opportunity was given it was held that superannuation was in violation of principles of natural justice
In State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar  per majority a seven Judge bench held that the rule of procedure laid down by law comes as much within the purview of article 14 of the Constitution as any rule of substantive law
In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India 1 another bench of seven judges held that the substantive and procedural laws and action taken under them will have to pass the test under Art 14
The test of reason and justice cannot be abstract
They cannot be divorced from the needs of the nation
The tests have to be pragmatic otherwise they would cease to he reasonable
The procedure prescribed must be just fair and reasonable even though there is no specific provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause against action proposed to be taken against an individual which affects the right of that individual
The duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action
Even executive authorities which take administrative action involving any deprivation of or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of citizens must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done
They have a duty to proceed in a way which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness unreasonableness or unfairness
They have to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice
The law must therefore be now taken to be well settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of article 14
941 and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil of article 14 and the procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders effecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of article 14
So it must be rightjust and fair and not arbitrary fanciful or oppressive
There can be no distinction between a quasi judicial function and an administrative function for the purpose of principles of natural justice
The aim of both administrative
inquiry as well as the quasi judicial enquiry is to arrive at a just decision and if a rule of natural justice is calculated to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice it is difficult to see why it should be applicable only to quasi judicial enquiry and not to administrative enquiry
It must logically apply to both
Therefore fair play in action requires that the procedure adopted must be just fair and reasonable
The manner of exercise of the power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice
article 21 clubs life with liberty dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence
When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportu nity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence
article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality equalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory dictates
Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness
It is thereby conclusively held by this Court that the principles of natural justice are part of article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just fair and reasonable
In Delhi Transport Corpn
vs D T C Mazdoor Congress and Ors 1991 Suppl
1 SCC 600 this court held that right to public employment and its concomitant right to livelihood received protective umbrella under the can copy of articles 14 and 21 etc
All matters relating to employment includes the right to continue in service till the employee reaches superannuation or until his service is duly terminated in accordance with just
fair and reasonable procedure prescribed under the provisions of the constitution and the rules made under the provisions of the constitution and the rules made under proviso to article 309 of the Constitution or the statutory provisions or the rules regulations or instructions having statutory flavour
They must be conformable to the rights guaranteed in Part III and IV of the Constitution
article 21 guarantees right to life which includes right to livelihood the deprivation thereof must be in accordance with just and fair procedure prescribed by law conformable to articles 14 and 21 so as to be just fair and reasonable and not fanciful oppressive or at vagary
The principles of natural 942 justice is an integral part of the Guarantee of equality assured by article 14
Any law made or action taken by an employer must be fairjust and reasonable
The power to terminate the service of an employeeworkman in accordance with just fair and reasonable procedure is an essential inbuilt of  natural justice
articles 14 strikes at arbitrary action
It is not the form of the action but the substance of the order that is to be looked into
It is open to the court to lift the veil and gauge the effect of the impugned action to find whether it is the foundation to impose punishment or is only a motive
Fair play is to secure justice procedural as well as substantive
The substance of the order is the soul and the affect thereof is the end result
It is thus well settled law that right to life enshrined under article 21 of the Constitution would include right to livelihood
The order of termination of the service of an employeeworkman visits with civil consequences of jeopardising not only hisher livelihood but also career and livelihood of dependents
Therefore before taking any action putting an end to the tenure of an employeeworkman fair play requires that a reasonable opportunity to put forth his case is given and domestic enquiry conducted complying with the principles of natural justice
In D 7 C vs D
TC Mazdoor Congress and Ors
supra the constitution bench per majority held that termination of the service of a workman giving one month s notice or pay in lieu thereof without enquiry offended article 14
The order terminating the service of the employees was set aside
In this case admittedly no opportunity was given to the appellant and no enquiry was held
The appellant s plea put forth at the earliest was that despite his reporting to duty on December 3 1980 and on all subsequent days and readiness to join duty he was prevented to report to duty nor he be permitted to sign the attendance register
The Tribunal did not record any conclusive finding in this behalf
It concluded that the management had power under Cl 13 of the certified Standing Orders to terminate with the service of the appellant
Therefore we hold that the principles of natural justice must be read into the standing order No 13 2 iv
Otherwise it would become arbitrary
unjust and unfair violating articles 14
When so read the impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice
This conclusion leads us to the question as to what relief the appellant is entitled to
The management did not conduct any domestic enquiry nor given the appellant any opportunity to put forth his case
Equally the appellant is to blame himself for the impugned action
Under those circumstances 50 per cent of the back wages would meet the ends of justice
The appeal is accordingly allowed
The award of the Labour Court is set aside and the letter dated December 12 1980 943 of the management is quashed
There shall be a direction to the respondent to reinstate the appellant forthwith and pay him back wages within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of this order
The appeal is allowed accord ingly
The parties would bear their own costs
NPV Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant alongwith Radhey Shyam and Munni Lal were charged with the murder of Gokaran Prasad on 24111975 at about 5 PM
The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and acquitted the accused persons
On appeal the High Court appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case convicted Munni Lal along with the appellant for an offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
During the pendency of the appeal the main accused Radhey Shyam died
This appeal is against the High Court s Judgment under Section 379 of the code of Criminal Procedure
Allowing the Appeal in part HELD  1
The High Court has rightly pointed out that PW 6 was not connected with the prosecution party in any manner and there was no reason for him to depose falsely claiming to be an eye witness of the occurrence
As such his evidence can be taken into consideration
to corroborate the evidence of the informant PW 1
587 C 2
The occurrence took place at about 5 PM and the first information report was lodged at 645 PM within two hours the Police Station being at the distance of four miles from the place of occurrence
In the first information report the same version of the occurrence was disclosed which has been stated in Court
Apart from naming himself PW 1 also named PW 5 and PW 582 6 as eye witness of the occurrence
The Investigating Officer reached the place of the occurrence at 9
PM the same evening
In such a situation there does not appear to be any scope for concoction of a false case to implicate the accused persons leaving out the real culprits
PW 1 being the brother of the deceased his going to the Court of Tehsildar at Sitapur and returning to village with the deceased is most natural
His evidence cannot he rejected merely on the ground that he happened to be the brother of the victim
It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that near relations will be the last persons to leave out the real culprits and to implicate those who have not participated in the crime
Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration the prosecution has been able to prove the case as disclosed in FIR against the accused persons
587 E G 3The appellant was a school student and there was no reason on his part to share the common intention of committing the murder of the victim
By merely pressing down the victim before the other two accused persons assaulted him it cannot be held that appellant had shared the common intention of causing the death of the victim
In the facts and circumstances of the case it has to he held that he shared only the common intention of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
He can be attributed with the intention that the injuries which were being caused by the other two accused persons were likely to cause the death of the victim
588 E F 4
The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with 34 IPC as well as his sentence to imprisonment for life is set aside
He is convicted under Section 304 Part 1 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years
588 G