1. Application under Section 33, Industrial Disputes Act for dismissal of workmen for go slow misconduct — Refusal of permission by Industrial Tribunal. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. N. WANCHOO AND K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction).
Messrs. Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd.
Versus
Jai Singh and others
Appeal by Special Leave from, the Award, dated the 6th March, 1958, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna in Misc. Case No. I of 1957.
Advocates appeared
A. B. N. Sinha, Advocate and K. K. Sinha, Advocate for Gopi Nath Dikshit, Advocate, for Appellants.
T. R. Bhasin, Advocate, for Respondents.
If a domestic enquiry is defective, the Industrial Tribunal can still take evidence to determine if misconduct is proven before granting permission for dismissal under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Proven "go slow" is serious misconduct and negates claims of victimization based on union activities.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33 - Permission for dismissal - Defective domestic enquiry - When the domestic enquiry conducted by the management is found to be defective or not held, the Industrial Tribunal is not absolved of its duty to decide whether the charges of misconduct are made out - The Tribunal may take evidence from both sides to determine if there is a prima facie case for dismissal - In such cases, the management loses the benefit of the domestic tribunal's findings being accepted as prima facie proof and must prove the misconduct to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.
(B) "Go slow" - Nature of misconduct - Deliberate delaying of production while claiming full wages is a pernicious and dishonest practice - It is more harmful than a total strike as it can damage machinery - Such conduct constitutes serious misconduct under certified Standing Orders.
(C) Mala fide and Victimization - To find an employer guilty of victimization, there must be reason to believe the employer intended to punish workmen for union activities under the guise of other reasons - Dismissal for serious misconduct like "go slow" cannot be reasonably termed as mala fide or revengeful - Delay in holding an enquiry or filing an application for permission to dismiss does not, by itself, establish mala fides or an intention to victimize.
Facts of the case:
An employer applied for permission to dismiss 21 workmen for misconduct related to a "go slow" action. The Industrial Tribunal refused permission for 20 workmen, concluding that their participation was not deliberate but a consequence of delays at an earlier production stage, and that the employer was acting mala fide to victimize union members. The domestic enquiry was held to be defective as it violated principles of natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The court held that evidence adduced before the Industrial Tribunal established that several workmen actively participated in and instigated the "go slow." The court found no evidence of victimization, noting that the seriousness of the misconduct justified the proposed punishment and that the employer's conduct during conciliation or the delay in proceedings did not prove mala fides.
Issues: Whether the Industrial Tribunal can accept evidence to prove misconduct when the domestic enquiry is defective; whether "go slow" constitutes serious misconduct; and whether the management's actions amounted to mala fide victimization of union members.
Ratio Decidendi: The Industrial Tribunal has the authority to take evidence and decide on the merits of the misconduct even if no proper domestic enquiry was held. "Go slow" is a serious form of misconduct. Victimization is not established merely by the fact that the workmen are union members or that there was a delay in the proceedings, provided the misconduct is actually proven.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
labour and industrial law
-
industrial disputes
-
misconduct and dismissal
- go slow
- domestic enquiry
- victimization and mala fides
-
misconduct and dismissal
-
industrial disputes
-
practice and procedure
- evidence
Table of Contents
2. Perversity of findings regarding lack of deliberate misconduct — Arbitrariness of findings concerning management mala fides and victimization of union members. (Para 2 )
Judgment
Das Gupta, J.-The appellant, a Sugar Mill Company, made on December 31, 1956, an application under section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna for the dismissal of 21 workmen for misconduct in connection with "go slow" alleged to have been resorted to by the workmen of the factory from the midnight of February 12. to the February 18, 1955. The Tribunal held that actual participation in a "go slow" had been established only against one of the workmen at the Donga end and that the " go slow " at the later stages in which the other 20 workmen had been engaged occurred as a necessary consequence of this go slow by one workman at the Donga end and was not a deliberate " go slow " by them. The Tribunal was of opinion, also that the management was not acting buna fide and really was seeking to victimise active members of the Union which the employer had refused to recognise. Accordingly, it refused permission in respect of 20 of the workmen and gave permission to dismiss only Nihora Dubey a workman at the Donga. The correctness of this refusal is challenged before us in this appeal by Special Leave. The appellant s convention is two-fold. First, it is said that the finding of the Tribunal that these workmen in respect of whom permission to dismiss was refused were not guilty of any deliberate go slow is perverse ; secondly it is contended that the Tribunal s view that the employer was guilty of mala fide conduct and victimisation of these workmen for Union activities is arbitrary and erroneous.
It does not appear to have been disputed that " go slow " was actually resorted to in this factory from the 12th February to 18th February, 1955. It was indeed hardly open to the workmen to dispute this, after all the pomp and ceremony with which "go slow" was celebrated. We find that as early as 15th January, 1955, ten demands were communicated by the Union on behalf of the workmen by a letter which said that unless these demands were conceded by the 26th January, 1955, the workmen would resort to "go slow " from the 30th January, 1955. This notice to "go slow" appears to have been withdrawn on the 22nd January, 1955, apparently on the advice of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. Muzaffarpur. A further letter was issued the same day in which five demands were made with a request to concede these by the 6th February failing which it was said they would "resort to go slow from the 19th February, 1955". The Secretary of the Bharat Sugar Mills to whom the Conciliation Officer wrote, that very day, wrote back on the 22nd January, 1955, that they had not received any notice dated January 22, 1955. In reply to a further communication from the Assistant Labour Commissioner the appellant sent a telegram on the 3rd February, 1955, regretting inability to attend the proposed conciliation meeting on the 4th February, 1955, as both the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary were away. Then on the 8th February another telegram was sent on behalf of the management informing the Assistant Labour Commissioner that the General Secretary would be returning soon and that any date after the 11th may be fixed. Thereafter, in reply to a further communication from the Assistant Commissioner inquiring as to what date would suit the management the General Secretary Shri K. C. Sarda sent another telegram requesting the Assistant Labour Commissioner to fix any date before the I7th. This telegram was sent on the 11th February. On the next date, the 12th February Sarda sent a further telegram to the Assistant Labour Commissioner stating that he would come to Muzaffarpur on the 15th afternoon. Before any action could however be taken by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the workers commenced their " go slow " from the midnight of the 12th February.
" Go slow " which is a picturesque description of deliberate delaying of production by workmen pretending to be engaged in the factory is one of the most pernicious practices t
