1998 INSC 0396
                                           Municipal Committee Tauru

                                                           Vs

                                             Harpal Singh and Another

                                          Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 1998

                                         (S. P. Bharucha, V. N. Khare JJ)

                                                      24.04.1998

                                                        ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. The first respondent filed a claim statement before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Gurgaon, which was in the form of the demand notice that he had issued to the appellant. It stated
thus :

                  "That the applicant was appointed as Octroi Moharrir w.e.f. 1-7 1980 in the pay scale
                  of Rs. 400-600 and had been performing his duties as Moharrir honestly and
                  diligently but the respondents from 1-6-1985 had unlawfully detained him from duty
                  on the plea either to work as Octroi Peon otherwise the respondents would not allow
                  him on duty. The applicant refused to perform duty as Octroi Peon, as the application
                  was for being appointed as Moharrir. A complaint has been lodged with the Labour
                  Inspector but to no result. The action of the respondents in not allowing the applicant
                  on service tantamounts to an illegal dismissal, removal, discharge from service. It is
                  therefore prayed that the applicant be reinstated on duty as Octroi Moharrir with
                  continuity of service and a back wages."

Alongside his signature upon the aforesaid, the first respondent stated : "The demand notice may be
treated as claim statement."

3. It is necessary immediately to analyse what the first respondent's claim was. It was : (1) that he
had been appointed as an Octroi Moharrir; (2) that he had been performing the duties of a Moharrir;
(3) that the appellant had wanted him to work as Octroi Peon; (4) that he had refused to perform the
duties of an Octroi Peon because he had been appointed as a Moharrir; and (5) that he be reinstated
as Octroi Moharrir.

4. Before the Labour Court the first respondent deposed :

                  "I was appointed as Octroi Peon in Municipal Committee, Tauru in 1980. I was
                  removed from employment in 1985; no show-cause notice or compensation was
                  given before removal ....

                  I used to work as Octroi Clerk and issue Octroi receipt ....

                  It is wrong that I have left the job on my own."
5. The first respondent's evidence is patently contrary to his claim statement in that he now claimed
that he had been appointed as an Octroi Peon.

6. The Labour Court noted that in the claim statement the first respondent had stated that he was
appointed an Octroi Moharrir but he was asked to work as an Octroi Peon, which he had refused to
do. An issue was framed in this regard but no evidence was produced by the first respondent. In
spite of this, the Labour Court, having found that the first respondent had been appointed as an
Octroi Peon, held that it was mandatory for the appellant to issue a notice to the first respondent and
hold an enquiry and find out the reason for his absence. It ordered that the first respondent was
entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.

7. The appellants preferred a writ petition challenging the order of the Labour Court before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana. There is no discussion of the case of the first respondent before the
Labour Court in the order of the High Court thereon, which is under appeal, but it was stated that
the appellant did not hold any inquiry regarding the absence of the workman; no notice was issued
to him and he had not been paid retrenchment compensation. Consequently, the findings recorded
by the Labour Court deserved to be affirmed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that it was the first respondent's own case that the
appellant had wanted him to work as an Octroi Peon but that the first respondent had declined to do
so on the ground that he was appointed as an Octroi Moharrir. The findings of the Labour Court and
the High Court did not take note of this and were, therefore, erroneous. Learned counsel for the first
respondent submitted that in labour matters technicalities should not be allowed to prevail, that the
claim statement should be looked at as a whole and that the Labour Court had done a substantial
justice.

9. Even in labour matters a claimant goes before the court or tribunal with a case and it is upon the
merits of that case that relief is to be granted or refused to him. To look to his case is not to look at
technicalities. There is no substantial justice when the court or tribunal gives relief to a workman
which is on a basis that is totally contrary to the basis upon which he approached it; which, indeed is
the employer's case. Substantial justice must be done both to the employer and the employees.

10. Having regard to the claim of the first respondent which we have quoted, looked at as a whole,
there is no doubt whatsoever in our mind that he deserved no relief whatsoever. The Labour Court
and the High Court could not have turned a blind eye to the inconsistent stand taken by him in the
claim statement and his evidence.

11. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court under appeal is set aside and
the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The first respondent shall pay to the appellant the
costs of the appeal.