An employer cannot dismiss an employee for misconduct unless the employee has been charged with the specific misconduct and given an opportunity to defend himself.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - Standing Orders - Misconduct - Speech by Union Vice-President at meeting criticizing General Manager - Whether act subversive of discipline - Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, S. 22.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a Steno-typist and Vice-President of the Union, made a speech at a meeting criticizing the General Manager. The management charged him with misconduct under the Standing Orders, alleging that the speech was subversive of discipline. The Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the management's application for permission to dismiss the respondent.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the speech by itself was not an act subversive of discipline, as the Union had the right to pass resolutions calling for the removal of the General Manager. However, the Court found that the respondent's conduct in the correspondence and enquiry was reprehensible and amounted to insubordination.
Issues: Whether the speech made by the respondent at the meeting held on 10-6-1952, was an act subversive of discipline.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the charge-sheet furnished by the appellant to the respondent formed the basis of the enquiry and the appellant could not be allowed to justify its action on any other grounds than those contained in the charge sheet. The respondent not having been charged with the acts of insubordination which would have really justified the appellant in dismissing him from its employ, the appellant could not take advantage of the same even though these acts could be brought home to him.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal but ordered that each party do bear and pay its own costs of the appeal.

Judgement

BHAGWATI J. - The Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Lucknow dismissed the application of the appellant made under S.22, Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, for permission to dismiss the respondent, its workman, and the appellant obtained from this Court.

Special Leave to Appeal against that order.

2. The respondent has been working as a Steno-typist with the appellant since 3-12-1946, and is also the Vice- President of the Union of workers which is affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress and is known as Chini Mills Mazdoor Sangh. One M. P. Singh has at all relevant times been and is still the General Manager of the appellant.

3. The relations between the appellant and its workmen are governed by the Standing Orders framed by mutual agreement between the Labour and the Sugar Mills in Uttar Pradesh which have been approved by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Clause L (1) (j) of the said Standing Orders runs as under: -

"Drunkenness or gambling or riotous or disorderly behaviour while on duty in factory premises, or in quarters provided by the mills or elsewhere or any act subversive of discipline."

These are among the items of misconduct which would entitle the appellant, after due enquiry, to dismiss a workman from its employ.

4. There were longstanding disputes between the appellant and its workmen since October, 1946, and on 23-2-1949, Kedar Nath Khetan, one of the partners of the appellant, wrote to Shri Kashi Nath Pandey, General Secretary, Indian National Sugar Workers, Federation, promising to remove the General Manager as soon as the season of the Chhitauni factory was over. There was, however, an agreement arrived at between the partners of the factory and the Chini Mills Mazdoor Sangh on 13-9-1949, under which the demand for the removal of the General Manager was withdrawn by the workers.

The disputes, however, continued and matters came to a head in 1952. In May, 1952, the management charged 76 members of the Union for participation in a Tools-down strike. The matter went up to the Labour 9 Appellate Tribunal which, by its award, reinstated all the 76 workmen. The management preferred writ petitions Nos. 402 and 409 in the Allahabad High Court but the same also were dismissed. Special Leave was obtained from this Court against those decisions of the Allahabad High Court and the same are pending.

5. During the pendency of the application of the management for the discharge of the said 76 workmen before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the workers held a meeting on 10-6-1952, near an old mosque outside the factory area to consider the situation arising out of the suspension of the 76 workmen and the ways and means of meeting the same. The respondent participated in the said meeting as the Vice-President of the Union and made a speech criticising the attitude of the General Manager in terms which were set out in the report dated 10-6-1952, submitted by two workers by name Dhar Tewari and Jamuna Prasad to the General Manager. The speech of the respondent as reported there was to the following effect: -

"The General Manager of this factory wants to crush the Labour movement from the very beginning. He allowed some of his intermediaries to join strike when Shri Shibban Lal Saxena had served a strike notice. His men had also persuaded some of our members to join the strike. As a result of this we had decided to launch a strike. On the other hand, the Manager Sahib was sitting on the phone for the permission of the Collector to dismiss all our fellow workers. Shri Moti Lal Singh was able to discover this conspiracy and he at once prevented us from going on strike. Then Manager Sahib could not succeed in his plan.

This time he has falsely accused 76 of our workers of resorting to Tools-down strike. These workers will surely be reinstated. But our efforts are rendered useless due to the acts of the Government Officers; the Collector of this District is getting some thing secretly from the Manag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document