PETITIONER: A. K. DASS Vs. RESPONDENT: NATIONAL FED. OF COOP. SUGAR FACTORIES LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT11/01/1994 BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M. SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 520 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant who was in service of the respondent-
Management as a staff-car driver was dismissed from service
on the allegation that he was pilfering petrol and did not
handle the car efficiently. The Labour Court on an
appreciation of the material placed before it came to the
conclusion that the said charge was not well founded.
Ordinarily, therefore, the Labour Court would have directed
his reinstatement in service on that finding of fact but it
did not do so on the ground that ‘the job of a staff-car
driver is rather a job of confidence’ and since the
management has lost confidence in the employee,
reinstatement in service would not be justified. In taking
that view the Labour Court referred to the decision of this
Court in Anil Kumar Chakraborty v. Saraswatipur Tea Co.
Ltd.1 and other decisions on the same line. We need not go
into the case-law on this subject because it is well settled
that if it is a case of loss of confidence the discretion is
vested in the Court to refuse reinstatement. This is based
on the doctrine of confidence. We agree with the Labour
Court that since the appellant was a staff-car driver even
if his termination is quashed on the ground that allegations
are not established, that would be a factor which would
weigh with the court since the officer occupying the staff-
car would not have confidence in the person if he is placed
in charge of that vehicle. Therefore, we are not inclined
to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that.
this was not a fit case for the Labour Court to refuse
reinstatement on the ground of loss of confidence.
2. It appears that at the time when special leave was
granted this Court had made an order dated September 3, 1982
directing payment of subsistence allowance of Rs 400 per
month till final orders were made in the appeal. There was
an indication that adjustment of this payment may be made at
the hearing of the appeal. It is, however, an admitted fact
that the compensation of Rs 25,000 awarded by the Labour
Court was not paid and that amount remained with the
management. It is equally true that the appellant received
subsistence allowance under the court orders. If one were
to calculate the interest on the compensation amount and
adjust the same with the subsistence allowance, the figure
of subsistence allowance actually received would shrink
considerably. The question then is whether the amount which
was received by way of subsistence allowance is sufficient
to take care of the falling value of the rupee over a
1 (1982) 2 SCC 328: 1982 SCC (L&S) 249
522
period of time. Balancing these factors, the amount of Rs
25,000 awarded by the Labour Court needs to be increased to
Rs 40,000 having regard to the fall in the rupee value. We
direct that this amount may be paid within three months from
today failing which thereafter it will carry interest at 15%
per annum. The appeal will stand allowed accordingly with
no order as to costs.