SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 244

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., K.K. MATHEW, V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND S. MURTAZA FAZL ALI, JJ.
M/s. Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Gorakhpur, Appellant
Versus
Shibban Lal Saxena and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 781 of 1973,
D/- 30-7-l975.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. S. V. Gupte and A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocates (M/s. E. C. Agarwala and Promod Swarup, Advocates with them), for Appellant M/s. K. R. Chowdhari and S. L. Sethia, Advocates (for Nos. 1 and 2), Mr. G.N. Dikshit, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate with him), (for Nos. 3 and 4), for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, E.C.Vidya Sagar, G.N.DIKSHIT, K.R.CHAUDHARY, O.P.RANA, PROMOD SVARUP, S.L.SETHI, S.V.Gupta

Headnote:ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER—RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE APPLY TO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

       -held, it is not necessary that there should be speaking order unless law so requires. But it is desirable that while deciding rights of parties orders give reason.

       -see decision in Mahabir Jute Mills v. Shibban Lal, AIR 1975 SC 2057=48 F.J.R.5=(1975) 1 Lab. L.J. 326.

Judgment

FAZL ALI, J. - This is an appeal by the management of M/s Mahabir Jute Mills situated at Gorakhpore by a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. M/s. Mahabir Jute Mills Mazdoor Sabha was formed some time in the year 1946 and soon thereafter when Shibban Lal Saxena one of the respondents was elected as President of the labour Union of the Mill disputes arose between the workers and the Company as a result of which Shibban Lal Saxena sent notice to the management on December 31, 1946 threatening a general strike. Thereafter several disputes arose between the parties which were sometimes settled, sometimes reopened and in this appeal we are not concerned with those matters. In the previous disputes the order of the management retrenching some workers was upheld by the Regional Conciliation Officer and against that Shibban Lal Saxena served a notice of strike listing 18 demands and calling upon the management to reinstate the retrenched workers and pay them bonus. This notice was given on March 31, 1954. On April,16, 1954 a total strike was launched and Shibban Lal Saxena left for China. During his absence it appears that the management arrived at some sort of settlement with the working President of the Union and the dispute for the time being was resolved on July 11, 1954. Shibban Lal Saxena, however, returned from China and with his re-entry into the Union matters assumed serious proportions and the disputes reached a high pitch. Mr.Saxena is alleged to have excited the workers and wanted to re-open the agreement reached between the management and the working President of the Union on July 11, 1954. He also started an agitation and the workers responded to the go-slow call given by Mr. Saxena as a result of which the production of the Company came down from 500 cuts to 300 cuts resulting in huge losses to the Company as alleged by the management. It is further alleged that Mr. Saxena had delivered a number of inflammatory speeches as a result of which the management charge-sheeted two workers for willful jamming of bobbins in the Spinning Section as a result of which the spinning work came to a stop. On January 4, 1955 the management held an inquiry against the two workers and three other workers who appeared to be in sympathy with them were also charge-sheeted for their stay-in-strike. This strike -continued right up to January 13, 1955 in spite of the efforts of the management to arrive at a settlement. This was followed by a charge-sheet which was served by the management on various workers on February 5,1955. Mr Saxena protested to the management saying that the charge-sheets were absolutely baseless. A notice was put on the main gate of the Mill on February 22, 1955 informing that an inquiry would be held on February 25, 1955 and after inquiry which the respondents described as a mere farce a large number of workers were served dismissal notices. It appears that out of 1000 workers all of them had been dismissed from service but 200 workers who apologised were reinstated and taken back. In view of these developments the Union invoked jurisdiction of the Regional Conciliation Officer under clause 4(l) of the Government Notification dated July 14, 1954 passed under Section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A Conciliation Board consisting of the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer as the Chairman and Shibban Lal Saxena and Shri Arora, representing the labour and the management respectively as members was constituted. The Conciliation Board heard the case but unfortunately no settlement could be arrived at. Consequently the reports of the members of the Board forwarded to the Labour Commissioner were placed before the Government, Mr. P. C. Kulshreshtha, the Additional Regional Conciliation Officer and Chairman of the Board sent a secret report to the Labour Commissioner recommending that the allegations made by the workers against the managemen













































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top