Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M.Shelat : V.Bhargava
Tata Engineering And Locomotive Company Limited
Versus
S.C.Prasad
Case No. : 868 of 1966
Date of Decision : 3/11/69
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 144 - Company - Workmen - Discharged from Service - Orders of Dismissal - Whether discharge/dismissal of 10 workmen named therein was proper and justified - Whether they were entitled to reinstatement or any other relief - Whether existing educational facilities provided by management to dependents of workmen were adequate - Whether ta existing medical facilities provided by company to workmen and theire familles were adequate - Whether tribunal was right in holding that orders of dismissal in respect of Satpal - Whether said orders were proper and justified - Whether - termination is in fact discharge simpliciter or dismissal though language of order is one of simple termination of service - Whether act of employer is bona fide - Whether power exercised was one for simple discharge or was punitive for a misconduct - Whether original or duplicate of it was produced - Whether disciplinary action against these workmen should be launched or not – Held, Enquiry officer said that he could not do that and to enable workman to arrange for their attendance adjourned inquiry though workman ought to have kept his witnesses in readiness to be examined by him - Enquiry proceedings show that so far as two officers were concerned Vishnu Lal did not want them to be examined as his witnesses but he wanted their production as companys witnesses and to cross-examine them - Tribunal held that it was obligation of enquiry officer to have these witnesses produced and that his failure to do so was a defect which vitiated enquiry - Tribunal was, in view, in error in thinking that enquiry officer was under any obligation in law to produce witnesses required by workman - Discussion makes it clear that none of grounds relied on by tribunal for holding enquiries and findings thereat arrived vitiated can be sustained - Jurisdiction of tribunal being limited, it can deal with merits of impugned orders only if it could properly come to conclusion either that domestic enquiries were not validly or properly held or that findings given by enquiry officers were vitiated either by reason of their being in breach of rules of natural justice or perverse or contrary to evidence - Since that was not so, tribunal could not disregard those findings and decide for itself that orders of dismissal were unjustified - No question of victimisation or management having a bias against these workmen also can arise once it is held that finding of misconduct alleged against employees was properly arrived at and domestic enquiry was in no way vitiated - Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
SHELAT, J.
(1) -IN Ref. 27 of 1964 between the appellant company and its workmen three questions were referred to the Industrial tribunal for ad- indication: (1) whether the discharge/dismissal of the 10 workmen named therein was proper and justified ; if not, whether they were entitled to rein- statement or any .other relief; (2} whether the existing educational facilities provided by the management to the dependents of the workmen were adequate; if nor. what additional facilities the company should provide; and (3) whether ta- existing medical facilities provided by the company to the workmen and theire familles were adequate ; if not, what additional facilities it should pro- vide. As regards question l,the company had .held domestic enquires against workmen 1 to 7 and on conclusion thereof the General Manager accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, had passed orders of dismissal. So far as workmen 8 and 10 were concerned, the company had removed their names from its rolls on the ground that they had abandoned their employ- ment. Workman No. 9, Ram Manohar Dubey, was discharged from service on the ground that due to certain activities of his the management had lost confidence in him and considered his being continued in service as prejudi- cial to the companys interests.
(2) THE tribunal gave an elaborate award and held that the said enquiries were not properly held, that they suffered from breach of the princi- ples of natural justice and that the said orders of discharge and dismissal were mala fide and were the result of victimisation. The tribunal quashed the said orders and except in the case of the said Dubey, directed reinstate- ment. In the case of Dubey, it directed that he should not be reinstated but that the company should pay his back wages from the date of his discharge up to the date of theaward. On questions 2 and 3 the tribunal directed the company to start a new High School as soon as possible and to construct a "full fledged" hospital within three years from the date of the award inspite of the existing provisions made by the company for incurring annual expenditure of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 15 lakhs for educational and medical amenities respectively. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the correctness and validity of the said award.
(3) MR. Chagla for the company stated that the company would press the appeal on the first question only against the workmen ( 1), Satpal, (2) Vishnu Lal, (3) B.B. Prasad, (4) B.P. Singh, and (5) Ram Manohar Dubey and not against the rest as the company has either reinstated some of them or the appeal has abated as in the case of Kalika Awasthy on account of his death. Mr. Nag for the workmen, on the other hand, stated that he was not in a position to support the award on questions 2 and 3 and that therefore on those questions it may be set aside and the companys appeal to that extent may be allowed. The question, therefore, which remains for our determi- nation is whether the tribunal was right in holding that the orders of dis- missal in respect of Satpal, Vishnu Lal, B.B. Prasad and B.P. Singh and the order of discharge against the said Dubey were rightly set aside by the Tri- bunal and its orders of reinstatement and compensation are valid ?
(4) THE appellant company was started in 1945 and has since then deve- loped into a large industrial complex employing about 18,000.00 workmen. Its business is to manufacture, amongst other things, Tata Mercedes Benz vehicles and various types of machineries and other engineering products. Amongst its several divisions, there is what is called the Auto Division in which trouble started in 1964 of which the instant reference was part of the manifestation. The trouble started with internecine rivalries between two groups of workmen respectively led by one R.N. Prasad and by the said Awas- thi for obtaining control over the recognized union called the Telco Workers Union. On 28/12/1963 a mee
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
