Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Section 33 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Workmen Of Motipur Sugar Factory ... vs Motipur Sugar Factory on 30 March, 1965
factory resulting in a major breakdown of the machinery.
The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was go slow
during ,the period and consequently held that the discharge
of the workmen was fully justified. It was contended before
this Court that what the Tribunal had to concern itself was
whether the discharge of the workmen for not giving an
undertaking was justified or not and that it was no part of
its duty to decide that there was go slow which would
justify the order of discharge and ,that since the
Respondents held no enquiry as required by the .Standing
Orders it could not justify the discharge before the
Tribunal. It was pointed out in that case that the
Court had consistently held that if the domestic
enquiry is irregular, invalid or improper the Tribunal
may give an opportunity to the employer to prove his case
and in doing so the Tribunal tries the merits itself and
that no distinction can be made between cases where the
domestic enquiry is invalid and those where no enquiry has
in fact been held. It was observed at page 603:
The Hindusthan General Electrical ... vs Bishwanath Prasad And Anr. on 17 August, 1971
In a recent case-the Hindustan General Electrical
Corporation Ltd. v. Bishwanath Prasad & Anr.,(1) while
considering this aspect of the matter we had held that even
though no enquiry was held or there was contravention of the
provisions of Sec. 33 ,of the Act, in a dispute referred
under Sec. 10 the Labour Court had to adjudicate upon the
dispute which was referred to it with regard to the
Respondent and had to go into the question
(1) Civil Appeal No. 2167 of 1966-Judgment delivered on 17-
8-71,
501
as to whether he had been properly dismissed. In other
words the management can justify and substantiate its action
on evidence duly placed before the Tribunal.
The learned Advocate for the Respondents however urges that
even where the strike is illegal in order to justify the
dismissal or the order terminating the services of workmen
on the ground of misconduct the management must prove that
they were guilty of some overt-acts such as intimidation,
incitement or violence. We do not think that in every case
the proof of such overt acts are necessary prerequisite. In
this case there is a persistent and obdurate refusal by the
workmen to join duty notwithstanding the fact that the
management has done everything possible to persuade them and
give them opportunities to come back to work but they have
without any sufficient cause refused, which in our view
would constitute misconduct and justify the termination of
their services. The workmen as spoken to by the Labour
Officers and also as, is evidenced by the documentary
evidence to which we have referred, were unwilling to join
duty till the workmen who were suspended were also taken
back. There is nothing to justify the allegation that the
management wanted to terminate their services under some
pretext with a view to recruit them afresh and deprive them
of accrued benefits. The notices clearly mention that the
workmen would be free to join duty by a certain date and
only after that date ,the management was prepared to
entertain them a, new entrants if they were to apply by the
date specified in the notices. It appears to us therefore
that management has proved misconduct and the stand taken by
it was reasonable. There was nothing that it could do
further in view of the unjustified attitude taken by the
workers by staying away from work particularly after they
were given over a month's time within which to commence
work. In the view we take the order terminating their
services was not improper. The Tribunal was not justified
in directing their reinstatement and payment of wages merely
on the round that no domestic enquiry was held. The appeal
is accordingly allowed except for the Award in respect of
Surat Singh, which is maintained. Having regard to the
circumstances of the case there will be no order as to
costs.
Express Newspapers (P) Ltd vs Michael Mark And Another on 25 July, 1962
In Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Michael Mark & Anr.,(1)
where certain' employees who had indulged in ill--gal strike
did not join their duty in spite of notices given by the
management and their places were filled up by others,
applied for relief under the Payment of Wages Act but the,
application was dismissed. The workers moved the High Court
under Art. 226 and their Writ Petitions were allowed. This
Court in Appeal held that the Standing Orders contemplated
termination of employment by the employer and in those cases
there could be no doubt that the Appellant had terminated
the employment, ,of the Respondents by removing their names
from the muster roll without giving them any notice of such
removal. It was also held that if employees absent
themselves from work because of strike in enforcement of
their demands, there can be no question of abandonment of
employment by them and that if the strike was in fact
illegal, the Appellant could take disciplinary action
against the employees under the Standing Order and dismiss
them.
The Payment Of Wages Act, 1936
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
India General Navigation And Railway ... vs Their Workmen on 14 October, 1959
This case merely illustrates what has been stated by us that
even where the strike is illegal a domestic enquiry must be
held. In the case before us admittedly there were no
Standing Orders applicable to the appellant. Nonetheless a
domestic enquiry should have been held in order to entitle
the management to dispense with the services of its workmen
on the ground of misconduct. This view of ours is also
supported by another case of this Court in India General
Navigation &- Railway Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen(1) where it
was held that mere taking part in an illegal strike without
anything further would not necessarily justify the dismissal
of all the workers taking part in the strike and that if the
employer, before dismissing a workman, gives him sufficient
opportunity of explaining his conduct and no question of
mala-fides or vicitimisation arises, it is not for the
Tribunal in adjudicating the propriety of such dismissal, to
look into the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence led
before the 'enquiring officer or insist on the same degree
of proof as is required in a Court of Law, as if it was
sitting in appeal over the decision of the employer., It may
be mentioned that in the case of a domestic enquiry where
misconduct is held to be proved the Tribunal can only
interfere with that order if there is mala fides or want of
good faith, there was victimisation or unfair labour
practice or the management has been guilty of basic error or
violation of the principles of natural justice or on the
materials the finding is completely baseless or perverse.
If however the management does not hold such an enquiry or
the enquiry is due to some omission or deficiency not valid
it can nonetheless support its order of discharge,
termination or dismissal when the matter is referred for
Industrial adjudication by producing satisfactory evidence
and proving misconduct. Even in such cases the evidence
which is produced to substantiate and justify the action
taken against the workmen is not as stringent as that which
is required in a Court of Law. At any rate the evidence
should be such as would satisfy the Tribunal that the order
of termination is proper.
The Punjab National Bank, Ltd vs Its Workmen on 24 September, 1959
In the Punjab
National Bank Ltd. v. Its Workmen,(2) though there was no
enquiry held by the management it sought to justify the
action of termination of services of its employees before
the Industrial Tribunal. The employees of the Appellant
Bank had commenced pen down strikes which were followed by
general strike Pending arbitration of an industrial dispute
between them. On the intervention of the Govt. the Bank
reinstated all the employees
(1) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 1.
1