Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. C. Desai, J.
RADHA RAMAN BAJPAI - Appellant
Versus
LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF INDIA - Respondents
. . Of .
Decided On : 02/22/1956
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - ADJUDICATION - JURISDICTION - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - LAW APPLICABLE - CONTRACT ACT - STANDING ORDERS - INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) ACT, 1950 - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE WITH AN ORDER OF AN EMPLOYER MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDING ORDERS AND NOT IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT OR THE LAW OF CONTRACT - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CANNOT HOLD A FRESH INQUIRY AND THEN DECIDE THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HAS TO APPLY THE LAW OF CONTRACT (SO FAR AS IT IS NOT REPEALED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT) TO THE ADMITTED OR PROVED FACTS TO DETERMINE THE PARTIES RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN DISCRETION IN PLACE OF THAT OF THE EMPLOYER AND TO REDUCE THE PUNISHMENT ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS EXCESSIVE - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN SETTING ASIDE THE DISMISSAL OF THE TEN WORKMEN - LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAD JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL FROM THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL'S DECISION REINSTATING THE TEN WORKMEN AS THE APPEAL RAISED A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW - WHETHER AN INDUSTRIAL COURT IS ENTITLED TO INTERFERE WITH THE PUNISHMENT INFLICTED BY AN EMPLOYER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDING ORDERS ON PROOF OF A CHARGE OF MISCONDUCT IS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, workmen of the Sun Publishers and advertisers limited, were dismissed from service by the managing director of the company on the ground that they had staged an illegal strike and taken forcible possession of the press. The applicants challenged the dismissal before the industrial tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of two of the applicants but reinstated the remaining ten with immediate effect. The opposite party appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which restored the dismissal of the remaining ten workmen. The applicants filed an application for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the industrial tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, and a writ of mandamus directing the industrial tribunal to re-hear the reference.
Finding of the Court:
The industrial tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the opposite party, as it was not in contravention of the Industrial Disputes Act or the law of contract. The industrial tribunal could not hold a fresh inquiry and then decide the dispute between the parties, but had to apply the law of contract (so far as it is not repealed by the Industrial Disputes Act) to the admitted or proved facts to determine the parties rights and liabilities. The industrial tribunal could not substitute its own discretion in place of that of the employer and to reduce the punishment on the ground that it was excessive. The Labour Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from the industrial tribunal's decision reinstating the ten workmen as the appeal raised a substantial question of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the industrial tribunal had jurisdiction to interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the opposite party? 2. Whether the industrial tribunal could hold a fresh inquiry and then decide the dispute between the parties? 3. Whether the industrial tribunal could substitute its own discretion in place of that of the employer and to reduce the punishment on the ground that it was excessive? 4. Whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from the industrial tribunal's decision reinstating the ten workmen?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The industrial tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with an order of an employer made in accordance with the standing orders and not in contravention of the Industrial Disputes Act or the law of contract. 2. The industrial tribunal cannot hold a fresh inquiry and then decide the dispute between the parties, but has to apply the law of contract (so far as it is not repealed by the Industrial Disputes Act) to the admitted or proved facts to determine the parties rights and liabilities. 3. The industrial tribunal cannot substitute its own discretion in place of that of the employer and to reduce the punishment on the ground that it was excessive. 4. The Labour Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the industrial tribunal's decision if the appeal involves any substantial question of law.
Final Decision: The application for a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus is dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs of certiorari quashing orders of the State industrial tribunal, Uttar Pradesh and the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, third Bench, Lucknow, and a writ of mandamus directing the State industrial tribunal to re-hear the reference. The applicants are workmen of the Sun Publishers and, advertisers limited, opposite party 3, which has its registered office at Kanpur. on 10 September 1953, Sri S. P. Mehra, the managing director of opposite party 3, framed charges against some workmen including the applicants to the effect that on 9 September 1953, at 1. 30 p. m. they under the leadership of R. K. Tewari, applicant 2, Staged an illegal strike without giving previous notice and at 4 p. m. took forcible possession of the press, and called upon them to submit their explanations on 12 September 1953, by 10. 30 a. m. The charges were heard by the managing director of opposite party 3 on 12 September 1953. but none of the applicants appeared before him and none of them submitted any explanation. He recorded evidence of some witnesses in support of the charges and being satisfied from the evidence that the charges were proved dismissed the applicants from service on the same day. The applicants and three other workmen who were dismissed with them moved the conciliation board for conciliation of their dispute with the opposite party on 12 September 1953. On 14 September 1953, the managing director received written explanations of the applicants, but was not persuaded to alter the order of dismissal passed against them. The conciliation proceedings started by the applicants proved abortive and the State Government, Uttar Pradesh through its notification, dated 23 December 1953 referred to the State Industrial Tribunal Uttar Pradesh for adjudication the issues whether the employers have wrongfully and/or unjustifiably dismissed their thirteen workmen, given in the Annexure", and "if so, to what relief are the workmen entitled. " The dispute was referred for adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh industrial Disputes Act (XXVIII of 1947) and in pursuance of the provisions of Clause 10 of g. O. No. 671, dated 15 March 1951. The thirteen workmen named in the annexure included all the applicants. The tribunal proceeded to adjudicate the issue ; the applicants and opposite party 3 produced evidence before it. Through its order, dated 27 February 1954, it maintained the dismissal of Radha Raman and R. K. Tewari, applicants 1 and 2, on the ground that it was neither wrongful nor unjustifiable, held that Kamla Kant, applicant 7, had not been dismissed at all and upheld the grounds of dismissal of the remaining ten workmen but held that the punishment awarded exceeded the gravity of the offence committed by them and ordered them to be reinstated with immediate effect. It found as a matter of fact that the workmen had staged an illegal strike and that their conduct was unruly. The applicants as well as opposite party 3 appealed from the tribunal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Third Bench, Lucknow. The Appellate Tribunal on 8 December 1954 dismissed the appeal of the applicants and allowed that of opposite party 3 and restored the dismissal of the remaining ten workmen also.
( 2 ) ONE of the grounds on which the applicants challenged the dismissal before the industrial tribunal was that conciliation proceedings were pending on 12 September 1953, on which date the order of dismissal was passed by opposite party 3, and that opposite party 3 had obtained no permission from the conciliation officer for dismissing them. Admittedly the opposite party did not obtain permission of the conciliation officer for dismissing the workmen, but the allegation that conciliation proceedings were pending on 12 September 1953 was seriously challenged on behalf of the opposite party. The conciliation proceedings
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
