w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ajayapal Singh (D) Through Lrs. v/s Associated Cement Companies Ltd.

    Civil Appeal No. 6625 of 2018 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20804 of 2018]

    Decided On, 12 July 2018

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

    For the Appellants: Vikas Upadhyay, Vidit Monga, Advocates. For the Respondents: C.U. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Bharat Goyal, Manish Kumar, Gopal Singh, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Kurian Joseph, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant (since deceased) approached this Court, aggrieved by his termination on account of in

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

volvement in a criminal case, which, according to the respondent - Management, amounted to moral turpitude. The appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC and at the appellate stage, the punishment was confined only to payment of fine.

3. Sh. C. U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Management, points out that the offence involved was an attack on the wife of a co-worker. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the appellant expired. His legal representatives have been brought on record. The appellant had 13 years of service. We are also informed that during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant had been granted the benefits amounting to more than Rs. 3 Lakhs under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met and complete justice would be done in case the legal representatives of the appellant, who have been substituted, are granted a monetary compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs). Ordered accordingly.

5. The above amount shall be paid to the legal representatives of the appellant, who have come on record, within four weeks from today. We make it clear that this Judgment is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and therefore, not to be treated as a precedent.

6. In view of the above, this appeal is disposed of.
O R