Back
1971 Supreme(SC) 111
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
TULSIDAS PAUL
Versus.
SECOND LABOUR court, W. B. AND others
Decided on February 3, 1971
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Dismissal of said eight workmen – Appeal, by special leave, arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant firm and eight of its workmen represented by the All India Chhata Karkhana Muzdoor. Union referred for adjudication to the Second Labour court, Calcutta. – Dispute was whether the dismissal of the said eight workmen by the appellant firm was justified – Held, Court held that no hard and fast rule as to which circumstances would constitute an exception to the general rule can be laid down as the tribunal in each case must, in a spirit of fairness and justice and in keeping with the objectives of industrial adjudication, decide whether it should, in the interest of justice, depart from the general rule. – In the absence of any proof that that would be the consequence of reinstatement, the conclusion of the learned single Judge that it would so result was only an assumption. – It is true that the workmen could not have lien on the posts to which they were employed in the technical sense of that term but, as aforesaid, there was evidence of the firm following the practice of engaging the same workmen when they presented themselves for work at the commencement of the next season. – Appellants having failed to lead evidence as to a reasonable possibility of recurrence of trouble if the concerned workmen were to be reinstated or of their not being entitled to be employed at the beginning of the next season, it was impossible to say that the case of an exception to the general rule of reinstatement was made out. – Case before the High court thus was not one where there was any error of law on the face of the record, nor was it a case where the Labour court had acted in excess of its jurisdiction or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. – There was no occasion for interference by the high court and the division bench must, therefore, be held not to have erred in reversing the interference by Single Judge – Appeal Dismissed
Judgment
Shelat,JJ.
( 1 ) THIS appeal, by special leave, arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant firm and eight of its workmen represented by the All India Chhata Karkhana Muzdoor. Union referred for adjudication to the Second Labour court, Calcutta. The dispute was whether the dismissal of the said eight workmen by the appellant firm was justified?
( 2 ) THE dispute arose from the following facts :
PRIOR to 4/02/1960, most of the workmen in the appellants factory were members of the All India Chhata Karkhana Muzdoor union. Sometime prior to February 1960 they became members of the rival union, the Calcutta Chhata Karkhana Muzdoor Union. The said eight workmen and two others, however, refused to join the rival union and that resulted in bad feelings between the two unions. On 4/02/1960, there was trouble in the factory when a procession of workers entered into the factory and began to throw brickbats and other missiles. The appellants did not then take any action presumably because the trouble was amongst the workmen themselves owing to the said union rivalry. However, when the said eight workmen together with the said two others (with whom we are not concerned in this case) arrived at the factory, the rest of the workmen requested the appellant firm not to give work to them. It would seem that the appellants thereupon declined to give work to those workmen. According to the appellants, the workmen had passed a resolution asking the appellants 207 not to give work to those workmen and had handed over that revolution to them. The workmen raised a dispute on the ground that the refusal to give them work amounted to dismissal which was sponsored by the All india Chhata Karkhana Muzdoor Union.
( 3 ) THE Labour court found, on the evidence before it, that the appellants had refused to give work to these workmen out of deference to the wishes of the rest of the workers. It held, however, that the action of the appellants in refusing work to those workmen amounted to their dismissal and since the dismissal was not for any misconduct and was made without holding any enquiry it was unjustified. In that view the Labour court ordered reinstatement and directed payment of all back wages from 5/02/1960 till the date when they would be taken back in employment.
( 4 ) THE appellants thereupon invited the High court at Calcutta through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the said order. A learned Single Judge of that High court, who tried the petition, agreed, for the reasons given by him in his judgment, with the Labour court that the appellants action in refusing work amounted to dismissal. He also held, that the decision of the Labour court that it was not justified could not in the circumstance of the case be said to be wrong. But on the question as to what relief the workmen were entitled, he relied on the Punjab National bank v. All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation, where it was held that though the general rule in cases of unjustified dismissal was reinstatement, "nevertheless, in unusual or exceptional cases the tribunal may have to consider whether, in the interest of the industry itself, it would be desirable or expedient not to direct reinstatement". The position, according to the learned Judge, was that the appellants dismissed the eight workmen owing to the attitude taken by the majority of the workmen. He posed the question as to what was the remedy of the workmen despite the fact of their dismissal beings-wrongful. He observed that reinstatement of these eight workmen might be taken by the other workers "with ill grace and may start fresh industrial hostilities", that such an eventuality had to be avoided, and therefore, the Labour court, in such exceptional circumstances, should have considered the unusual circumstances and instead of reinstatement ought to have compensated the workmen with adequate monetary consideration. In addition, he held that the employment of the workme
