Case: D. K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Limited

to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice. 10. 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 Art. 14 and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Art. 14 and the procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Art. 14. So it must be right, just 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. 11. 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. Art 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 opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence. Art 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, equilitarian 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 Art. 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable. 12. In Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 AIR(SC) 101 - 1991-I-LLJ-395 this Court held that right to public employment and its concomitant right to livelihood received protective umbrella under the canopy of Arts. 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 proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution or the statutory provision or the rules, regulations or instruction having statutory flavour. They must be conformable to the rights guaranteed in Parts III and IV of the Constitution. Art 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 Arts. 14 and 21 so as to be just, fair and reasonable procedure is an essential in-built of natural justice. Art. 14 strikes at arbitrary action. It is not the form of the action but the substance of 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 effect thereof is the end result. 13. It is thus well settled law that right to life enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution would include right to livelihood. The order of termination of the service of an employee/workman visits with civil consequences of jeopardising not only his/her livelihood but also career and livelihood of dependents. Therefore, before taking any action putting an end to the tenure of an employee/workman 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.T C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress (supra) the Constitution Bench, per majority, held that termination of the service of a workman giving one months notice or pay in lieu thereof without enquiry offended Art. 14. The order terminating the service of the employees was set aside. 14. In this case admittedly no opportunity was given to the appellant and no enquiry was held. The appellants 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 Order 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 Art. 14. When so read the impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice. 15. This conclusion leads us to the question as to what relief the appellant is entitled to. The management did not conduct and domestic enquiry nor given the appellant any opportunity to put forth his case. Equally the appellant is the 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 of the management 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. 16.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. It is thus well settled law that right to life enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution would include right to livelihood. The order of termination of the service of an employee/workman visits with civil consequences of jeopardising not only his/her livelihood but also career and livelihood of dependents. Therefore, before taking any action putting an end to the tenure of an employee/workman 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.T C. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress (supra) the Constitution Bench, per majority, held that termination of the service of a workman giving one months notice or pay in lieu thereof without enquiry offended Art. 14. The order terminating the service of the employees was set aside14. In this case admittedly no opportunity was given to the appellant and no enquiry was held. The appellants 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 Order 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 Art. 14. When so read the impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice15. This conclusion leads us to the question as to what relief the appellant is entitled to. The management did not conduct and domestic enquiry nor given the appellant any opportunity to put forth his case. Equally the appellant is the 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 of the management 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.