HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. N. Sinha
NATIONAL TOBACCO CO. OF INDIA LTD. - Appellant
Versus
FOURTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - Respondent
Matter 38 Of 1959
Decided On : NOVEMBER 19, 1959
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - DOMESTIC ENQUIRY - PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - VICITIMISATION - PUNISHMENT - REINSTATEMENT - WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, three companies with a common Managing Agent, challenged an award of the 4th Industrial Tribunal reinstating 10 clerks dismissed for misconduct. The Tribunal had found that the domestic enquiry conducted by the company was fair and complete, but it set aside the dismissal on the grounds of victimisation, excessive punishment, and the need for appropriate relief to the aggrieved party.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the principles applicable to cases of dismissal following a domestic enquiry, as laid down by the Supreme Court, apply to cases of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, mutatis mutandis. The Tribunal erred in its approach by ignoring the findings of the domestic enquiry and conducting a de novo trial. The court found no evidence of victimisation and held that the punishment of dismissal was justified given the gross misconduct of the clerks.
Issues: 1. Whether the principles applicable to cases of dismissal following a domestic enquiry, as laid down by the Supreme Court, apply to cases of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in its approach by ignoring the findings of the domestic enquiry and conducting a de novo trial? 3. Whether there was evidence of victimisation? 4. Whether the punishment of dismissal was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principles applicable to cases of dismissal following a domestic enquiry, as laid down by the Supreme Court, apply to cases of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, mutatis mutandis. 2. The Tribunal erred in its approach by ignoring the findings of the domestic enquiry and conducting a de novo trial. 3. There was no evidence of victimisation. 4. The punishment of dismissal was justified given the gross misconduct of the clerks.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the award of the Tribunal, and issued a writ of certiorari and mandamus directing the respondent not to give effect to the award.
( 1 ) THE facts of this case are shortly as follows : There are three companies before me as petitioners -- The National Tobacco Company of India Ltd. , the West Bengal Power Supply Co. Ltd. , and the Agarpara Co. Ltd. The first petitioner carries on the business of manufacture and sale of cigarettes and tobacco products. The second petitioner carries on the business of supplying electricity. The third petitioner carries on the business of manufacture and sale of jute fabrics. They have a common Managing Agent, Messrs, B. N. Elias and Co. Private Ltd. At all material times, until they were dismissed, the respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were employed as clerks by the first petitioner. The respondents Nos. 10 and 11 were employed as clerks by the second petitioner, and respondents Nos. 12 and 13 were employed as clerks by the third petitioner. The office space at the Head Office situate at 1-2, Old Court House Corner in Calcutta is divided into two wings, one occupied by the first petitioner (known as the "n. T. C. side"), and the other wing is occupied by the other companies managed by the said B. N. Elias and Co. Private Ltd. as the Managing Agents, including the second and third petitioners. Prior to January, 1958 the employees of the first petitioner used to record their attendance by signing in an attendance register. In January, 1958 it was decided to instal an "autograph", This is a machine containing a roll of paper and a sealed-in clock. As each clerk came in. he had to sign on the roll and to pull a lever. This automatically recorded the date and time against his signature, and it was not possible to alter the same without opening the machine. It appears that the clerks resisted the introduction of this machine and the position became such that conciliation proceedings had to be started. On the morning of 17-1-19581 there was an incident at the N. T. C. wing of the Head Office where the clerks were standing in a queue to record their respective signatures in the machine. As the queue increased and the tail of it reached the door, Mr. T. K. Biswas, the Chief Accountant of the company, who was in charge of the machine, directed one of his subordinate staff to close the door between the main hall where the recorder was situated and the waiting room. This led to an explosive situation and there was a certain disturbance. Ten of the leading participants in the disturbance, being respondents Nos. 4 to 13 in this application, were definitely identified and charge-sheeted. The exact wording of the charge-sheets which are in identical terms, is important and the relevant part thereof is set out below :"it has been reported by Mr. T. K. Biswas, Chief Accountant, National Tobacco Co. that you on 17-1-58 atabout 9. 45 A. M. along with many others joined an unruly assembly of clerks of this office and also of B. N. Elias and Co. Ltd. , had entered the room of Mr. T. K. Biswas in a highly excited mood shouting slogan, abusing him thwarting him with an intention to assault him. The Management had good reason to believe that you all had combined to execute at common purpose to manhandle and humiliate him by threat and assault and that had not other officers ran to his rescue, Mr. Biswas would have to face a grave crisis. You had all in combination bad thus misbehaved with a view to coerce him to withdraw the Automatic Time Recorder and stifle any attempt on the part of the Management to enforce discipline for the smooth working conditions in the office. Annexed please also find the report of Mr. T. K. Biswas. Chief Accountant which will speak for itself. and it is being treated as part of the charges brought against you. You are charged with the above offence which is to be treated as gross breach of discipline which constitutes grave misconduct. You are hereby required to explain in writing the circumstances alleged against you within 24 hours of the receipt of this Charge Sheet. Pending further enquiry you are
REFERRED TO : Kanpore v. Suti Mill Mazdoors Union
Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Sarup
Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerji
Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen
Balipara Tea Estate v. Its Workmen
Automobile Products of India Ltd. v. Rukmaji Bala
Caltex (India) Ltd. v. E. Farnandes
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.