1. Dismissal of workmen for go slow action and illegal strike — Challenge to reinstatement order by Industrial Tribunal under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 308
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
17th November 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Their Workmen, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 464 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Dr. Anand Prakash and D. N. Gupta, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (M/s. D. L. Sen Gupta and Janardan Sharma, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, ANAND PARKASH, D.L.SEN GUPTA, D.N.GUPTA, JANARDAN SHARMA, N.C.CHATTERJI
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, ANAND PARKASH, D.L.SEN GUPTA, D.N.GUPTA, JANARDAN SHARMA, N.C.CHATTERJI
Right to representation in domestic enquiries is governed by Standing Orders; refusal to allow representation by an unrecognized union, where only recognized unions are permitted, does not violate natural justice. "Go slow" action constitutes major misconduct justifying dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10 and 33 - Standing Orders - Dismissal of workmen for "go slow" action and insubordination - Whether the charge of "go slow" was properly framed and substantiated - Whether refusal to allow representation by an unrecognized union in a domestic enquiry constitutes a denial of natural justice - If Standing Orders provide for representation only by a member of a recognized union, the refusal to allow a representative from an unrecognized union does not vitiate the proceedings or amount to unfair play. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
(B) Domestic Enquiry - Right to representation - No inherent right to representation unless conferred by Standing Orders - Reasonable opportunity to meet charges is essential, but the specific mode of representation is governed by the applicable rules of the establishment. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) Industrial Tribunal - Scope of interference - Tribunal cannot act as a court of appeal to substitute its own view for that of the management unless the findings are perverse, lack bona fides, or are manifestly unfair. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
Twelve workmen were dismissed following a domestic enquiry into charges of "go slow" action and insubordination. The dispute arose amidst rivalry between a recognized union and an unrecognized union. The workmen refused to participate in the enquiry as they were not permitted to be represented by their unrecognized union, resulting in an ex parte enquiry. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal, holding that the "go slow" charge was not properly framed and that the refusal of representation constituted a denial of natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the "go slow" charge was clearly communicated through prior warning letters and was incorporated in the charge-sheet. The refusal to allow representation by an unrecognized union was consistent with the Standing Orders and did not violate the principles of natural justice. The "go slow" action was substantiated by production records and caused significant loss to the company, constituting major misconduct.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the workmen was justified based on the charge of "go slow" and whether the domestic enquiry was vitiated by the refusal to allow representation by an unrecognized union.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to representation in a domestic enquiry is not absolute but is governed by the Standing Orders of the company. If the orders limit representation to recognized unions, the company is not bound to allow representatives from unrecognized unions. Furthermore, "go slow" is a serious misconduct, and where such action is substantiated, the management's decision to dismiss is a matter of internal management unless the action is perverse or unfair.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether go slow was properly charged and substantiated — Whether refusal to allow representation by an unrecognized union violated principles of natural justice. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Go slow action constitutes major misconduct under standing orders — Refusal of representation by an unrecognized union does not vitiate domestic enquiry or deny natural justice. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. Right to representation in domestic enquiries is governed by standing orders; refusal to allow representation by an unrecognized union does not amount to denial of natural justice. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal allowed — Industrial Tribunal order vacated — Company dismissal order upheld. (Para 13 , 15 )
6. Does the refusal to allow a representative from an unrecognized union in a domestic enquiry violate natural justice?
No. There is no inherent right to representation unless the company's standing orders recognize such a right. Refusal to allow representation by a union not recognized under the standing orders does not vitiate the proceedings or constitute a denial of natural justice. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. Is go slow action considered a valid ground for dismissal in an industrial employment context?
Yes, if go slow is classified as major misconduct under the company's standing orders. When substantiated by evidence such as production logs and warning letters, such action justifies disciplinary action, including dismissal. (Para 8 , 11 )
8. To what extent can an Industrial Tribunal interfere with a company's domestic enquiry findings?
A Tribunal should not act as a court of appeal to scrutinize evidence and reach its own conclusions unless the company's action is lacking in bona fides or is manifestly perverse or unfair. (Para 13 , 14 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J. :- The Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd, was granted on January 21, 1968 special leave to appeal against the award of the Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, dated September 29, 1962. By that award the Tribunal set aside the dismissal from service of twelve workmen of the Company and ordered their reinstatement with continuity of service but awarded only 25 per cent of the back wages, etc., during the period they were out of employment treating the period as leave. This dispute was referred by the Government of West Bengal on July 20, 1960 under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen were dismissed after a domestic enquiry commenced on February 4, 1960 which was carried on ex parte because these workmen did not choose to be present. The Tribunal held that the enquiry was not proper and some of the witnesses were re-examined before the Tribunal whose verdict was against the Company and hence this appeal.
2. Eleven of these workmen belonged to what is known as the Dual Auto Mill and the twelfth was working on what is described as the Baby Mill. These workmen and several others stopped work from January 21, 1960 and they were placed under suspension on 25 / 27th January. Ten, other workmen were also dismissed but they were taken back on the intercession of the Government of Bengal. The incident arose in the following circumstances :
3. In the processing of rubber which is used in the manufacture of rubber goods by the Company, a number of departments have to work in sequence. The Bombury Section prepares a mixture of rubber and chemicals, and it is passed on to the Dual Auto Mill which, after further processing, turns out blocks of rubber called , "batches". Each batch is of about 1250 lbs. There were at the material time two Dual Auto Mills and they were working in three shifts and as each auto mill required the attendance of two workmen, twelve such workmen were employed to look after the two mills. Each shift was of 8 hours with half an hour s rest for meals and an extra 20 minutes for emergencies. It was expected to produce and was, in fact, producing 17 batches till January 12, 1960. There were another mill called the Baby Mill but what it was used for is not quite clear on the record of the case. One of the dismissed workmen (S.R. Sen Gupta - Check No. 252) was working on the Baby Mill and he was a protected worker.
4. The workmen in this Company are grouped under three Unions : the most numerous is Union No. 4145 which goes under the name of Dunlop Workers Union. This Union was registered but it was not recognised by the Company. Another, Union which bears No. 729 and goes under the name of Dunlop Rubber Factory Labour Union was recognised by the Company. We need not refer to the third Union which does not figure in these proceedings. It appears that Union No. 4145. which came into existence in 1957, managed to capture all the elective seats open to the workmen by defeating the candidates set up by Union No. 729. There was greate rivalry between the two Unions and the dismissed workmen belonged to Union No. 4145. It appears that Union No. 4145 had raised a demand for revision of wages etc., which was being resisted by the Company. The Baby Mill, the Bombay Mill and the Dual Auto Mills were manned by the workmen belonging to Union No.4145, except one Raghunandan Das, Check No, 100, who belonged to Union No. 729 and was teamed with Chandramma Chaube one of the dismissed workmen. Raghunandan Das was absent on leave from January 12 to January 19, 1960. From January 12, there was a fall in the output of the Dual Auto Mills at all the three shifts. The number of batches fell from 17 to 15 and later still further. On January 15, 1960 warnings were issued to these workmen that they were going slow and that "go slow" action was misconduct under cl. 10 (XVI) of the Company s Standing Orders for operators and under clause 18 (C) of the Labour Union Agreement for operators. They were told that if they
