The Industrial Tribunal cannot substitute its own judgment about the quantum of punishment on an application for permission to dismiss under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33 - SUSPENSION OF WORKMEN - PERMISSION TO DISMISS - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN JUDGMENT ABOUT THE QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CANNOT REJECT THE APPLICATIONS AGAINST WORKMEN ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:

The management of a sugar factory in Bihar suspended 48 workmen for participating in a go-slow. The management then applied to the Industrial Tribunal for permission to dismiss the workmen under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal found that there was no evidence to connect 16 of the workmen with the go-slow and rejected the application with respect to them. It also held that the suspension was not a punishment but was an interim measure pending enquiry and proceedings before the tribunal. The management appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in rejecting the applications against the 16 workmen and that the suspension was substantive punishment. However, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the applications were mala fide as they were made after punishment had already been meted out to the workmen.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in rejecting the applications against the 16 workmen as there was evidence to connect them with the go-slow. The Court also held that the suspension was not a punishment but was an interim measure pending enquiry and proceedings before the tribunal. The Court further held that the Appellate Tribunal had erred in holding that the applications were mala fide.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal could substitute its own judgment about the quantum of punishment on an application for permission to dismiss under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the Industrial Tribunal could reject the applications against 16 workmen on the ground that there was no evidence? 3. Whether the suspension of the workmen was a punishment or an interim measure pending enquiry and proceedings before the tribunal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Industrial Tribunal cannot substitute its own judgment about the quantum of punishment on an application for permission to dismiss under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal is only required to decide whether the misconduct alleged against the workmen is proved and, if so, whether it is of such a nature as to warrant dismissal. 2. The Industrial Tribunal cannot reject the applications against workmen on the ground that there is no evidence if there is evidence to connect them with the misconduct alleged. 3. The suspension of the workmen in this case was not a punishment but was an interim measure pending enquiry and proceedings before the tribunal.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the two Tribunals so far as the applications under Section 33 were concerned and granted the appellant the permission sought for by it in these applications subject to the workmen being paid all their wages during the period of suspension up to the date of the award of the Industrial Tribunal.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : These are two appeals by the managemeat by special leave in an industrial matter arising out of two applications under S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called the Act). The facts of the case are briefly these : The appellant, Messrs. Sasa Musa Sugar Works (Private) Ltd. is a sugar factory in district Saran (Bihar). The factory was established in 1932. In June 1942 a trade union was formed in this factory. In July 1943, trouble arose between the workmen and the management resulting in the discharge of three office-bearers of the union, including one Shams-ud-din, who was then the joint secretary. That matter was referred to adjudication and the discharged workmen were ordered to be reinstated in the beginning of 1944. In December 1944, there was trouble again and a large number of workmen were dismissed, including Shams-ud-din, who had by now become the president of the union. This dispute was again referred to an Industrial Tribunal, which again ordered reinstatement of the dismissed workmen in August 1947. There was peace for some time after this. But in June 1951, the management again discharged seventeen workmen including Shams-ud-din, who was at that time secretary of the union. The trouble continued up to December 1951, when an agreement was arrived at between the union an the management, as a result of which twelve of the workmen were reinstated but five, including Shams-ud-din, were not and their cases were to be referred to adjudication. It appears, however that another reference between the management and its workmen was already pending since September 8, 1951, before an Industrial Tribunal, when this agreement was arrived at. Thereafter the work in the factory proceeded smoothly for some time. But on January 1, 1952, a notice was issued by the union to the management enlisting as many as 40 demands and it was threatened that if the demands were not met within seven days, the union would have to advise the workmen to adopt go-slow and can upon them to offer passive resistance with effect form January 9, 1952 and take all legitimate means to see that the decision of go-slow was carried out till the demands of the union were fulfilled. This notice was received by the management on January 4, which immediately contacted the officers of the Labour Department as well as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Godalganj. On January 8, the Deputy Labour Commissioner wrote to the union that as the conciliation officer was busy in the general elections, the status quo should be maintained till the elections were over, so that the matter might be looked into by the conciliation officer. The union, however, gave no heed to this advice and go-slow began from January 9 and was continued till January 12, 1952. Then the labour Commissioner himself came to the factory on January 12 and advised Shams-ud-din who was the moving spirit behind all this to call off the go slow, as it was proposed to start conciliation proceedings at Patna on January 17, 1952 Conciliation proceedings then began on January 17 and an agreement was arrived at as to some of the demands on January 23, and it was decided that further conciliation proceedings would be held in February. But in spite of this agreement go-slow was again resorted to form January 24 to January 31. In the meantime, the Labour Officer had arrived at the factory on January 28, 1952 and further talks too place. The workmen, however, did not pay heed to the advice of the Labour Officer. He, therefore, reported on January 31 to the Labour Commissioner that go-slow was still continuing. The Labour Commissioner then ordered the Labour Officer to tell the workmen that no further conciliation proceedings would take place until the go-slow was called off. The Labour Officer then informed the management that it could take disciplinary action against the workmen concerned with the permission of the Industrial Tribunal. Consequently, the management suspended thirty-th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1959 Supreme(SC) 77

The Industrial Tribunal cannot substitute its own judgment about the quantum of punishment on an application for permission to dismiss under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Cases Referred (1)