http://JUDIS.NIC.

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5358 of 2002

PETITIONER:
Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B & Anr.

RESPONDENT:
Suresh Raghunath Bhokare

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/2004

BENCH:
S.B.Sinha, N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh.

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay made in W.P. No.5836 of 2001
confirming the order of the Industrial Court, Pune made in
Revision Application No. 12 of 2001 the appellant-Chief
Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board and another are
in appeal before us. The facts necessary for disposal of this
appeal are as follows :
The respondent herein and some others on being
recommended by the District Social Welfare Department were
selected as line-helpers in the appellant Board. On coming to
know that the said recommendation was allegedly made
fraudulently the respondent was dismissed from service by a
letter dated 26.9.2000. Being aggrieved by the said order of
dismissal the respondent herein filed a complaint alleging
unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of
Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act before the I Labour
Court, Pune, in Com.ULP No.145/99. The Labour Court framed
the following 3 issues :
"
i) Does the respondent prove that the misconduct
alleged against the complainant is proved on the
basis of evidence before the Court ?

ii) Whether the complainant proves that the

respondent has terminated the services of the
complainant by issuing the termination order dated
26/9/2000 by indulging into unfair labour practices
under item No.1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of
Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act 1971 ?

iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief of

reinstatement with continuity of service and with
full back wages as prayed for ?"

The Labour Court found all the issues against the

respondent, hence dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved by
the said order of dismissal of the complaint the respondent
preferred a revision before the Industrial Court at Pune under
section 44 of the said Act. The Industrial Court after
considering the material on record disagreed with the finding of
the Labour Court and reversing the said order quashed the
termination of services of the respondent and directed the
appellant to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
It however did not grant back wages.
As stated above a writ petition filed against the said order
of the Industrial Court came to be dismissed by the impugned
order of the High Court hence this appeal.
Mr. A.S. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellants
addressed lengthy arguments in support of the appeal and has
also filed written submissions. He has contended that the
respondent has played a fraud probably in collusion with the
District Social Welfare Officer and has obtained an
appointment through back door entry hence the respondent is
not entitled to reinstatement. He also relied upon the judgment
of this Court in the case of Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan & Anr. vs. Girdharilal Yadav (2004 6 SCC 325),
Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. (2003 8 SCC 319)
and Secretary, A.P. SWRE I Society vs. J.Prathap & Ors. (2002
10 SCC 430) to contend that misrepresentation by itself would
amount to fraud therefore an appointment based on
misrepresentation gets vitiated because of such fraud. On the
contrary Mr. M.D. Adkar, contended that the act of the
appellant in terminating the services of the respondent clearly
amounted to unfair labour practice as contemplated under the
MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. He submitted though the Labour
Court erroneously rejected the complaint of the respondent the
revisional court had properly taken into consideration all
material facts and given relief to the petitioner which has been
affirmed by the High Court hence this Court should not
interfere with the said orders of the authorities below.
The entire basis of the dismissal of the appellant depends
upon the factum of the alleged misrepresentation attributed to
the respondent. The Industrial Court in its impugned order has
noticed the fact that the respondent was appointed in April,
1994 pursuant to the selection procedure followed by the
competent authority and that he was selected by the panel of
Selection Committee consisting of 6 members which included
the very same Social Welfare Officer who had sent the proposal
including the name of the respondent for appointment. It also
noticed the fact that the selection in question was made after an
oral interview and the required test as also the medical
examination. The Industrial Court also noticed the fact that the
appointment of the respondent was confirmed after 1 year
period and thereafter the respondent has been working without
any complaint. Said Industrial Court also noticed the fact that
the termination of the respondent was based on a show-cause
notice issued on 5.7.1999 which was replied to by the
respondent on 17.7.1999 and the termination was made in a
summary procedure permissible under Rule 90(b) of the
Service Regulations. The Industrial Court after perusing the
pleadings and the notice issued to the respondent came to the
conclusion that the alleged misrepresentation which is now said
to be a fraud was not specifically pleaded or proved. In the
show cause notice no basis was laid to show what is the nature
of fraud that was being attributed to the appellant. No
particulars of the alleged fraud were given and the said
pleadings did not even contain any allegation as to how the
appellant was responsible for sending the so called fraudulent
proposal or what role he had to play in such proposal being
sent. It also noticed from the evidence of Mr. Waghmare, Social
Welfare Officer who sent the proposal before the Labour Court
that he did not utter a single word as to whether the said
supplementary list was ever called for by the Department
concerned or not. Thus applying the basic principle of rule of
evidence which requires a party alleging fraud to give
particulars of the fraud and having found no such particulars the
Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent
could not be held guilty of fraud. Said finding of the Industrial
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Court has been accepted by the High Court. Mr. Bhasme
though contended that the fraud in question was played in
collusion with the Social Welfare Officer and 2 other
employees of the Board and action against said 2 employees of
the Board has been taken, but by that itself we are unable to
accept the argument of Mr. Bhasme that there is material to
support the contention of the Board that the appellant had also
contributed to making the misrepresentation at the time of
applying for the job with the Board. In the absence of any such
particulars being mentioned in the show cause notice or at the
trial, attributing some overt act to the respondent, we do not
think the Board can infer that the respondent had a role to play
in sending a fraudulent list solely on the basis of the
presumption that since respondent got a job by the said
proposal, said list is a fraudulent one. It was the duty of the
Board to have specifically produced the material to prove that
the respondent himself had the knowledge of such a fraud and
he knowingly or in collusion with other officials indulged in
this fraud. Since there is no such material on record, on the facts
of the instant case, the Industrial Court and the High Court have
come to the right conclusion that the alleged fraud has not been
established by the appellants, hence, this is not a fit case in
which interference is called for. This appeal, therefore, fails and
the same is dismissed.