2008 (10) TMI 639 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Orders for Fresh Disposal

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE, CHANDIGARH & ANR Versus RAGHU RAJ

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's orders and remitting the matter for fresh disposal, emphasizing procedural fairness ... Whether once an appeal is admitted and is placed for hearing i.e. hearing on merits, it can be dismissed for default but cannot be decided on merits in absence of appellant (or his advocate)? Whether an appellate Court had right to dismiss an appeal on merits if the appellant fails to appear? Issues Involved:1. Validity of the termination of the respondent's employment.2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining the suit.3. Procedural propriety of the High Court's dismissal of the second appeal in the absence of the appellants' counsel.4. Principles of natural justice regarding the termination order.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Termination of the Respondent's Employment:The respondent was initially appointed as a 'beldar' on a temporary basis and was terminated twice due to unsatisfactory performance. The first termination led to an industrial dispute that was settled, resulting in the respondent's reinstatement on probation. The second termination, which was challenged in a Civil Court, was deemed valid by the trial court but was overturned by the appellate court. The appellate court found that the termination order, which cited unsatisfactory work and conduct, amounted to a 'stigma' and was thus invalid without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.2. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in Entertaining the Suit:The appellants contended that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the matter essentially involved an industrial dispute, which should be addressed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The counsel argued that the Civil Court's decree of reinstatement and back wages was beyond its jurisdiction.3. Procedural Propriety of the High Court's Dismissal of the Second Appeal:The High Court dismissed the second appeal on merits in the absence of the appellants' counsel, which was challenged on the grounds of procedural impropriety. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should not have decided the appeal on merits without hearing the appellants' counsel. The Supreme Court referenced past judgments, emphasizing that a party should not suffer due to the absence of their advocate, especially when the appeal was admitted and pending for over two decades.4. Principles of Natural Justice Regarding the Termination Order:The appellate court's decision to set aside the termination was based on the principle that the order was stigmatic and issued without following due process. The Supreme Court upheld the need for adherence to natural justice, which requires that an employee should be given notice and an opportunity to respond before being terminated on grounds that imply misconduct or incompetence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's orders dismissing the second appeal and the recall application. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after hearing both parties. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the need to ensure that both parties are given an opportunity to present their case. The appellants were directed to bear the respondent's costs, quantified at Rs. 20,000, to be paid within four weeks before the High Court proceedings could continue.