Back
1965 Supreme(SC) 105
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
30th March 1965
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd., Appellants
Versus
The Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd. Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Raneu Roy, Jai Krishan and G. S. Chatterjee, Advocates and Mrs. E. Udayarathnam, Advocate for Mr. A. K. Nag, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. Niren De, Addl. Solicitor General of India, (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him.) for Respondent.
A.K.NAG, E.UDAYARATHNAM, G.S.CHATTERJEE, Jai Krishan, NAUNIT LAL, NIREN DEY, RANEN ROY
If an employer discharges a workman without a domestic enquiry, the employer may justify the action before the Industrial Tribunal by leading evidence on the merits. The Tribunal then decides whether the discharge was justified based on the facts and evidence presented.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10 and 33 - Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 55 and 64(2)(d) - Discharge of workmen for go-slow - Scope of reference to Industrial Tribunal - Justification of discharge without domestic enquiry - Crushing speed as a measure of production.
(B) Scope of Reference - Where the reference to the tribunal is wide and general, asking whether the discharge was justified, the tribunal is entitled to investigate the real grounds leading to the discharge. Even if the formal notice of discharge mentions a specific reason, such as failure to give an undertaking, the tribunal may look into the underlying cause, such as go-slow tactics, if the context and preceding notices indicate that this was the real basis for the action. (Paras 5-9)
(C) Absence of Domestic Enquiry - Where an employer fails to hold a domestic enquiry before dismissing or discharging a workman, the employer is permitted to justify the action before the tribunal by leading all relevant evidence. In such instances, the tribunal has jurisdiction to satisfy itself on the facts whether the discharge was justified on its merits, rather than being limited to the prima facie case. This approach avoids repetitive litigation and serves the interests of justice. (Paras 11-12)
(D) Go-slow and Evidence - In determining whether go-slow has occurred, "crushing speed" (production excluding stoppages) is the determining factor rather than actual daily crushing, as the latter is affected by various external factors. A significant drop in crushing speed, while the labor force remains constant, is sufficient evidence to support a finding of go-slow. (Paras 16-19) (E) Factories Act - Special provisions under Section 64(2)(d) allowing the State Government to exempt certain continuous processes from mandatory rest intervals under Section 55 override the general provisions of Section 55. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
Seasonal workmen in a sugar factory were discharged after refusing to provide an individual undertaking to maintain a specific daily crushing norm. The management alleged that the workmen had resorted to go-slow tactics following a dispute over a proposed incentive bonus scheme. No domestic enquiry was conducted prior to the discharge. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the discharge, finding that go-slow had indeed occurred based on production statistics.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Industrial Tribunal was correct in investigating the go-slow tactics as the real reason for discharge. It held that the lack of a domestic enquiry did not preclude the employer from justifying the discharge before the tribunal. Based on the analysis of crushing speed data, the court concluded that the finding of go-slow was not perverse and the discharge was justified.
Issues: (i) Whether the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by investigating go-slow when the formal discharge notice cited the failure to give an undertaking; (ii) Whether the discharge could be justified before the tribunal in the absence of a domestic enquiry; (iii) Whether the finding of go-slow was based on perverse evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a wide reference allows the tribunal to look beyond the formal reason for discharge to the actual cause. Furthermore, if no domestic enquiry is held, the tribunal can adjudicate the merits of the case based on evidence produced by the employer. Production metrics, specifically crushing speed, are valid evidence for establishing misconduct in the form of go-slow.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
WANCHOO, J,; This is an appeal by special leave against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar. It relates to the discharge of 119 workmen of the respondent who were employed as cane carrier mazdoors or as cane carrier supervisors or jamadars. All these were seasonal workmen. It is necessary to set out in some detail the circumstances leading to the discharge. The respondent is a sugar factory and the crushing season starts usually in the first half of November each year. We are concerned in the present appeal with November and December 1960. It appears that from the season 1956-57, the respondent introduced an incentive bonus scheme in the factory. The scheme continued thereafter from season to season with certain changes. It also appears that in the beginning of each season, the respondent used to put forward the incentive bonus scheme and consult the workmen. The same thing was done when the season 1960-61 was about to start in November 1960. But the scheme for this season proposed by the respondent contained certain changes which were apparently not acceptable to the workmen. One of the features in the scheme was that the crushing of sugar cane per day should be 32.000 maunds. The general secretary of the union of the workmen suggested certain alteration for the consideration of the respondent on November 7, 1960 and one of the main alternations suggested was that the norm for per day s crushing should be 25,000 maunds of cane and thereafter incentive bonus should be given at a certain rate. No agreement seems to have been reached on the incentive bonus scheme, and the complaint of the respondent was that the secretary incited the workmen to go-slow in consequence of the change in the scheme. Consequently mild go slow in the cane carrier department which is the basic department in a sugar mill began from the very start of the season on November 10, 1960. The respondent s case further was that on November 27, 1960, the workmen in the cane carrier department started in combination with one another to go-slow deliberately and wilfully and in a planned manner and thus reduced the average daily crushing to 26,000 maunds cane which was much less than the average crushing in previous seasons. This conduct of the workmen was said to be highly prejudicial to the respondent and besides being technically unsafe, had brought into existence an acute shortage in the fuel position which might have resulted in the complete stoppage of the mill and major breakdown of the machinery. When the position became serious the respondent issued a general notice on December 15, 1960 inviting the attention of the workmen concerned to this state of affairs which had been continuing at any rate since November 27, 1960. This notice was in the following terms:
"At the instigation of Shri J. Krishna the General Secretary of your Union, you, since the very beginning of this season, have been failing in your duty to ensure adequate and regular loading of the cane carrier, and with effect from the 27th November, 1960, you, in combination with each other, have deliberately and with resorted to clear go-slow tacties, a fact openly admitted by the above-named General Secretary of your Union in presence of the Labour Superintendent and Labour Officer, Muzzaffarpur, in course of discussions held on the subject in the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner on the 6th December. 1960. You have deliberately reduced the average daily crushing the more or less 26,000 maunds out of which more than 2000 maunds is due to the newly introduced device of direct feeding of the cane carrier by cane carts weighted during nights and not attributable to any effort on your part. Thus the actual crushing given by you is practically something between 23,000 and 24,000 maunds only which is highly uneconomical and technically unsafe for this factory with an installed crushing capacity of more than 1200 tons a day. About 14,000 bales of extra bagasse kept in stock as r
