Delhi Cloth And General Mills Company LTD. vs Shambhu Nath Mukherjee

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1977 Supreme(SC) 295

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.K. GOSWAMI, P.N. SHINGHAL AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Shambhu Nath Mukherji and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1903 of 1970
Decided on 3-10-1977.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Rameshwar Dial, Adarsh Dial and A. D. Mathur, Advocates, for Appellant, Respondent No. 1. in person. (Appeal set down Ex parte against respondents Nos. 2 and 3).

Advocates:
A.D.MATHUR, ADARSH B.DAYAL, Rameshwar Dayal

Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S. 25F – Constitution of India - Art. 14 – Post of Assistant - Claim of compensation – Condo nation of delay - Ordinarily therefore workman would have been retrenched but in terms of a settlement between management and representatives of workmen no employee was retrenched - On other hand management agreed to offer work on any other suitable post - It is in that way that management offered to workman the job of a trainee on probation for post of Assistant Line-Fixer without loss of wages - Management found him unsuitable for this post even after extending the period of probation up to nine months and, therefore, offered him the post of a fitter on the same pay which he as a Motion-Setter used to get - This offer was made by the management by a letter which closed with following paragraph – Held, It is submitted by that in that decision this Court was only required to consider the objection raised on score of Art. 14 on a ground which is different from the one he would like to take before us - Court are however, unable to accept this submission - If this Court held S. 10 as intra virus and repelled the objection under Art. 14 of Constitution it would not be permissible to raise question again by submitting that a new ground could be raised to sustain objection. It is certainly easy to discover fresh grounds of attack to sustain the same objection, but that cannot be permitted once the law has been laid down by this Court holding that S. 10 of Act does not violate Art. 14 of Constitution - Ratio Textile Finishing Mills (supra) will apply while dealing with the objection under Art. 14 of Constitution in respect of present reference under S. 10 (1) (c) of the Act submission of the learned counsel is, therefore, devoid of substance - Question then arises whether the High Court was right in refusing to interfere with the award under Art. 226 of Constitution - There is no manifest error of law on face of award and none could be pointed out by learned counsel - Neither is there any error of jurisdiction - Issue before Labor Court was one of reinstatement of the workman and Labor Court was entitled to go into the whole question which it did – Court do not find any infirmity in the award - workman last attended work was a public holiday - He was therefore absent from work only - So even under the Standing Orders workman was not absent for "more than eight consecutive days order is therefore clearly untenable even on basis of the Standing Orders - It is not necessary to express any opinion in this appeal whether eight consecutive days in Standing Orders mean eight consecutive working days - Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

GOSWAMI, J.:— This a fight between a Goliath and a dwarf in an Industrial arena The workman, who is the respondent before us, was "automatically struck off the rolls" by the management (appellant) on August 24, 1965. The management has been persistently fighting him for the last twelve years having lost before the Labour Court, the single Judge of the Delhi High Court and lastly before the Division Bench of the High Court until the matter has landed in this Court on certificate.

2. The facts may briefly be stated:

The workman was recruited as a labourer in the Store in 1951. After about six months he was promoted as a Fitter-Helper and after about one and a half years he was promoted to the post of Motion-Setter till 1964. On October 1, 1964, there was some reorganisation in the managements establishment and the post of Motion-Setter was abolished. Ordinarily, therefore, the workman would have been retrenched, but, in terms of a settlement between the management and the representatives of the workmen, no employee was retrenched. On the other hand the management agreed to offer work "on any other suitable post". It is in that way that the management offered to the workman the job of a trainee on probation for the post of Assistant Line-Fixer (Assistant Grade I) without loss of wages. The management found him unsuitable for this post even after extending the period of probation upto nine months and, therefore, offered him the post of a fitter on the same pay which he as a Motion-Setter used to get. This offer was made by the management by a letter of July 31, 1965, which closed with the following paragraph :

"In case you agree to the above proposal, then your acceptance should reach my office within two days of the receipt of this letter otherwise it will be presumed that the above proposal is not acceptable to you and as a consequence you can be retrenched from the service of the Mills."

3. The workman was on leave and this letter was received by him on August 12, 1965. It is common ground that he worked as a Trainee (Assistant Grade I) upto August 14, 1965. August 15 being a public holiday, on 16th August, 1965, the workman wrote to the management to give him a further chance to show his efficiency in his job and if he failed to improve he would voluntarily tender his resignation. The workman closed his letter as follows :

"So, I hope that you will be kind to inform me without delay regarding the order served on me because I am a displaced person of East Pakistan and unable to stay more without any job.

Hope to get an early reply at the address given above".

The management did not reply to this letter and the workman also did not report to the management. It appears from the letter written by the management to the workman on January 19, 1966 that -

"your name has been automatically struck off the rolls under the provisions of the Standing Orders with effect from 24-8-65, for continued absence without any intimation."

This is the only reply which the workman got from the management to his 10 letter dated 16th August, 1965. It is surprising that the management did not immediately send a reply to the workman informing its inability to agree to his proposal in which case the only alternative with the management was to retrench his service. If this were done on receipt of the workmans letter of 16th August, 1965, the management could have been spared this tortuous and expensive litigation which may not affect the management but has caused immense hardship to the workman. It is a trite saying that one stitch at a time saves nine and the management could have avoided all this dispute by writing a two-line letter by offering the appropriate compensation under S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (briefly the Act).

4. Thus a dispute arose which led to conciliation and then to the Reference which resulted in an award in favour of the workman on December 21, 1967, reinstating him in service with full back wages. The Labour Court, h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1977 Supreme(SC) 295

Cases Referred (1)