Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
15th December, 1960.
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
The Bata Shoe Co., (P) Ltd., Appellant
Versus
D. N. Ganguly and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 32 and 33 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney General, for India; M/s. Nooni Coomar Chakravarti and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates with him, for Appellant; Mr. B. C. Ghosh, Sr. Advocate; Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Advocate with him, for Respondents.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - SETTLEMENT - CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS - MEANING OF - SECTION 18 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - INTERPRETATION - STRIKE - ILLEGALITY - REINSTATEMENT OF DISMISSED WORKMEN - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant company dismissed sixty workmen for participating in an illegal strike. The dispute was referred to the tribunal for adjudication. The tribunal held that the strike was illegal and that the dismissal of the workmen was justified. However, it ordered the reinstatement of thirteen workmen on the ground that they were not served with charge-sheets or that the inquiry against them was not proper.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the union on September 2, 1954, during the course of conciliation proceedings, was not binding under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it was not arrived at with the assistance and concurrence of the conciliation officer. The Court also held that the references made by the government to the tribunal were not incompetent on the ground that an individual dispute had been referred to the tribunal for adjudication. The Court further held that the tribunal was not justified in interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the appellant in the case of forty-seven workmen who had refused to accept the charge-sheets sent to them and who had been found guilty of misconduct which merited dismissal under the Standing Orders. However, the Court upheld the order of the tribunal with respect to the remaining thirteen workmen on the ground that they were not served with charge-sheets or that the inquiry against them was not proper.
Issues: 1. Whether the settlement arrived at between the appellant and the union on September 2, 1954, during the course of conciliation proceedings, was binding under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the references made by the government to the tribunal were incompetent on the ground that an individual dispute had been referred to the tribunal for adjudication? 3. Whether the tribunal was justified in interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the appellant in the case of forty-seven workmen who had refused to accept the charge-sheets sent to them and who had been found guilty of misconduct which merited dismissal under the Standing Orders?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is binding only if it is arrived at with the assistance and concurrence of the conciliation officer. 2. A reference made by the government to the tribunal for adjudication of an industrial dispute is not incompetent on the ground that an individual dispute has been referred to the tribunal for adjudication. 3. The tribunal should not interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the employer in a properly held managerial inquiry on the ground of discrimination unless it finds unfair labour practice or victimisation against the employee.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the order of the tribunal reinstating the forty-seven workmen. The Court dismissed the appeals with respect to the remaining thirteen workmen and confirmed the order of the tribunal with respect to them.
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. : These are two connected appeals by special leave in an industrial matter and relate to the dismissal of sixty workmen of the appellant-company. The dispute was referred by two references; one relates to 31 workmen and the other to 29 workmen. They have been disposed of by a common award, though, as the references were two, there are two appeals before us.
2. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these : On November 10, 1953, a general meeting was held by the workmen of the appellant and a no confidence motion was passed against the executives of the workmen s union and Shri Shahabuddin Bari was elected as the new president of the union. On February 6, 1954, the newly elected president served a strike notice on the management. On February 18, 1954, a settlement was arrived at between the management and Shri Fateh Narain Singh, the general secretary of the old executive committee. On February 23, 1954, the strike was launched in accordance with the notice served by Shri Bari and the strike continued for about a month. The strike was called off on March 19 to 20, 1954. The case of the appellant was that the strike which began on February 23, 1954, was an illegal strike as it took place during the currency of a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with the assistance of the Labour Commissioner who acted as conciliation officer. Consequently, the appellant took steps to serve charge-sheets on the workmen, who had joined the illegal strike, on March 4, 1954. This was followed by the dismissal of these sixty workmen after a managerial inquiry. It is said that thereafter there were conciliation proceedings which failed and consequently the two references were made.
3. The main findings of the tribunal are that the settlement of February 18, 1954, was a bona fide settlement arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings and was therefore binding on the workmen; and consequently the strike which began on February 23, 1954, was in breach of the terms of the settlement and was therefore illegal. The tribunal further held that the strike was staged in hot-haste and no reasonable opportunity was given to the management to reply to the demands made before launching the strike. It also held that the trouble arose because of the election of Shri Bari and the new office bearers. This matter was referred to the Registrar of Trade Unions and he held that the meeting at which Shri Bari and the new office bearers were elected was irregular and in consequence the old office bearers of the union continued to remain validly elected executives of the union. This decision was given on February 22, 1954, and the strike was launched on February 23rd immediately thereafter. The tribunal was not sure whether this decision had been communicated to Shri Bari before the strike was launched; but in any case it was of the opinion that there was no reason to stage the strike in such hot-haste after the settlement of February 18, 1954. Having thus held that the strike was illegal and there was no reason why it should have been launched in such hot-haste, the tribunal went on to consider the case of these sixty workmen who were dismissed. It held that no charge of violence was brought home to these workmen and even the charge-sheets which were originally issued to the workmen did not contain any charge of violence. The tribunal then divided the sixty workmen into three batches of 47, 11 and 2. In the case of 47 workmen, it held that they must be assumed to have been served with charge-sheets as they refused to accept them and that proper inquiry was held into the charges, though in their absence. In the case of 11 workmen, it was of opinion that charge-sheets had not been served on them and therefore any inquiry held in their absence was of no avail. In the case of two workmen, it held that no attempt was made to serve any charge-sheet on them. Further, it set aside the order of dismissal with re
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
