LexASSOCIATED CEMENT CO. LTD. versus THE WORKMEN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 Euju KOJav1111 v. M. M. Pililip lfidayatul/oh J. 1963 M'!JI 8. 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1964] VOL. We are satisfied that the exemption under the Act has been duly proved in this case. Since Bhaga- vathi Valli was not subject to part IV of the Ezhava Act, it is obvious that under the pure Marumakka- thayam law, Meenakshi and Vesudevan were not her heirs, but Bhagavathi Narayani and her daughter Gouri. Of these Gouri Narayanijoined in executing the document 'R' in favour of the answering respon- dent, which was executed by the legal representatives of the original mortgagee. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the present appellant was not entitled to redeem the otti, having never enjoyed the jenmom rights. The appeal, therefore, must fail and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismis1ed. ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO. LTD. v. THE WORKMEN AND ANR. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADJUR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) Industrial Diapute-Dismissal of workmen - Enquiry conducte.d by eye witness .. -Propriety-1/ vio/,af,e& principl• of natural justice-Proper procedure in domeatic enquir11-Rult. of •vidence - Industrial Diaputea Act, 1947 (U of 19117). •· IO (1} D. An industrial dispute arose in regard to the dismissal of certain workmen. It was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. There were three domestic enquiries. One of them was conducted by oificcn, who had thcmselv11 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1153 witnessed the alleged tnbconduct. The enqumes were challenged on the ground that thry were held in violation ol the princip1e of natural justice and the procedure adopted in conducting them was not fair. The Industrial Tribunal came to the conclusion that the enquiries were not conducted in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Held (i) that the enquiry conducted by the eye witnesses was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice as the enquiry officers bad themselves witnessed the alleged misconduct of the workmen. Domestic enquiries should be conducted by such officers of the employer who are not likely to import their personal knowledge into the enquiry proceedings. (ii) That in domestic the employer should firstly lead evidence against the workman charged, give him an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and then the workman should be asked to give an explanation if he so desires in regard to the evidence led against him. (iii) That the rule that a witness should not be disbelie· ved on the ground of an inconsistency betwC"'en his statement and that contained in a docuiftent unless he is given a chance of explaining that document, cannot be treated as a mere technical rule of evidence. The principle on which that rule is based is one of natural justice. (iv) That the evidence given in an enquiry against one workman cannot be accepted as evidence in an enquiry against another for the reason that the evidence given in the former enqiry was not recorded in the presence of the workman concerned with the second enquiry and he had no opportunity to test that evidence by cross-examination. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 636 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the award dated July 13, 1960, of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab Patiala in Reference No. 16 of 1957. ' R J. Kolah, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. J96!J tfsto&iat d C1111111t C11. Ltu. •• K'1r.hi1.t C1ment Co LtJ. v. W01k•m 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS VOL. K. T. Sule, Anand Swaroop and Janardan Sharma, for respondent Ne. I. 1963. May 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. -This appeal arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, the Associated Cement Companies Ltd., and the respon· dents, their workmen. The dispute was in regard to the dismissal of five workmen employed by the appellant at its Bhupendra Cement Works, Surajpur. The said workmen are : ( 1) Mehnga Ram, Bar Bender, (2) Janak Raj Soni, Store-Clerk, (3) Vishwa Nath Bali, Painter, (4) Daulat Singh, Motor Driver and (5) Malak Ram Khanna, Turner. The respon- dents contended that the dismissal of the said work· men was unjustified, and they demanded that the sairl dismissed workmen should be reinstated and their wages for the period of enforced unemployment ,hould be paid to them. The Government of Punjab referred this di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.