1971 Supreme(SC) 445

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.K. MITTER, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
The Oriental Textile Finishing Mills, Amritsar, Appellant
Versus
The Labour Court, Jullundur and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1071 of 1966, D/- 31-8-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. B. N. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. B. P. Maheswari, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. Hardev Singh, Advocate, for Respondents Nos 2 to 24.

Headnote:

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10, 23 (b), 24 (1), 10, 33-A and 33 - Payment of Wages Act – Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Industrial Dispute - Workmen - Suspended Workmen - Termination of Services - Charges of Misconduct - Whether termination of services of 31 workmen whose names were mentioned therein was justified - Whether management had terminated services of concerned workmen - Whether termination of employment of Respondents in circumstances of case without an enquiry was justified - Whether before services of workmen, who are on strike, are terminated, is an enquiry into their misconduct obligatory and would an omission to comply with this requirement, make order of termination illegal - Whether 150 employees had been wrongly dismissed – Held, It appears to Court that merely because workmen go on strike it does not justify management in terminating their services - In any case if allegations of misconduct have been made against them those allegations have to be enquired into by charging them with specific acts of misconduct and giving them an opportunity to defend themselves at enquiry - Even where a strike is illegal it does not justify management from terminating their services merely on that ground, though if it can be shown on an enquiry that conduct of workmen amounted to misconduct it can do so - Tribunal did not hear any evidence and by its final award held that strike was illegal, Bank was, on that ground alone, justified in dismissing employees - On Appeal Labour Appellate Tribunal held that even though strikes were illegal under Section 23 (b) read with 24 (1) of Act, Bank had by entering into agreement with Government of India, waived its right to take penal action against its employees for joining illegal strikes and that therefore, an enquiry should be held on additional evidence to decide disputes on merits - Appellate Tribunal thereafter, heard cases on merits, directed reinstatement of 136 of said employees, but refused to reinstate rest whom it found guilty of issuing posters and circulars subversive of credit of Bank - Both Bank and workers appealed to this Court - It was held that under Section 33-A of Act as constructed by this Court jurisdiction of Tribunal was not limited to an enquiry as to contravention of Section 33 of Act - Even if such contravention was proved, employer could still justify impugned dismissal on merits and there was no difference in this regard between a reference under Section 10 of Act and a dispute raised under Section 33-A of Act - Learned Advocate for Respondents however urges that even where strike is illegal in order to justify dismissal or order terminating services of workmen on ground of misconduct management must prove that they were guilty of some overt-acts such as intimidation, incitement or violence – Court do not think that in every case proof of such overt acts is a necessary prerequisite - In this case there is a persistent and obdurate refusal by workmen to join duty notwithstanding fact that management has done everything possible to persuade them and give them opportunities to come back to work but they have without any sufficient cause refused, which in Court view would constitute misconduct and justify termination of their services - Notices clearly mention that workmen would be free to join duty by a certain date and only after that date management was prepared to entertain them as new entrants if they were to apply by date specified in notices - It appears to Court therefore that management has proved misconduct and stand taken by it was reasonable - There was nothing that it could do further in view of unjustified attitude taken by workers by staying away from work particularly after they were given over a month s time within which to commence work - In view Court take order terminating their services was not improper - Tribunal was not justified in directing their reinstatement and payment of wages merely on ground that no domestic enquiry was held - Appeal is accordingly allowed except for Award in respect of Surat Singh, which is maintained - Appeal allowed.