LexATHERTON WEST & CO. LTD versus SUTI MILL MAZDOOR UNION AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1968 March 16, 780 SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS (1953) ATHERTON WEST & CO. T,TD. v. SUTI MILL MAZDOOR UNION AND OTHERS. [MEHR CtHND MiUHJAN and BHAGWATI JJ.] U. P. lndl!strial Disputes Act, 1947, ss. 3, 8-U. P. Govern- ment Notification No. 781 (L}!XVIII of March 10, 1948, els. 4, 7, 28-Dismissal of 1.uoi·krnen with permission of Regional Gonciliati011 0.(/icer-Jl!risdiction of Board to hear the dispute-TVhether dispute ceases to be an industrial dispnte-Award of Board-Abse10ce of one member dl!ring /waring- Validity of award., Under bhe provisions of clauses 4 and 7 (3) of Notification No. 781 (L)/XVIII issued by the United Provinces Government on ~farch 10, 1948, the absence of ol)e of the members of the Regio- nal Conciliation Board on the last date of hearing and his non- participation iri the making and signing of the award woulcl not render the award void or inoperative. The dismissal of workmen and their non-employment would not cease to be an industrial dispute merely because the Regional Conciliation Officer had given written permission to the employer to dismiss them under clause 23 of the T:.P. Government Notifica- tion of ~farch 10, 1948. Such ·permission does not Yalidate the <lismissal but only removes the ban on the right of the employer, bis agent or manager to dismiss the \\'orkmen concerned during the pendency of proceedings relating to an industrial dispute. CIVIL ArrELLA1'E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1953. Appeal by special leave from the decision dated 16th August, 1951, of ~he Labour Appellate 'l'ribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeal No. 43 of 1951 (Cal.). 0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India, (Sri Nrirain Andley, with him) for the appellant. 0. P. Vnr1na for the respondent. 1953. March 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAG\l'A1'I J.-This is an appeal by special leave from a decision of the [Jabour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, confirming an award made by the Regional Conciliation· Board (Textiles & Hosiery), Kanpur, in an industrial dispute between the appel- lants and the respondents, · s.c.R. SUPREME OOLiRT REPOR'rs 781 The' respondents 2. 3 and 4 were employees of the 1953 appellants, respondent 2 was employed in the - 1 ' l d h' l d 3 d 4 Athsrton West <l) c enca ca re w 1 e respon ents , an were em- 0 Ltd ployed as wrapping boy and piecer respectively and ".. · their service conditions were governed by the stand- Si.ti Mill ing orders of the Employers' Association of Northern l1fozdoor Union India, Kanpur, of which association the appellants and Othm. were members. Bhay11)ati J. · There was a theft in the canteen within the mill premises between the night of January 6 and 7, 1950, and some money belonging to the appellants invested iu the canteen account was stolen from the safe. A report of the theft was made to the police authorities and an investigation was made by the police as well as the appellants in the matter with no result. The management of the appellants thereafter took action against one J. P. Gurjar, who was in charge of the canteen in connection with the losses of money from the account of the canteen and after the completion of the enquiries terminated his services. An indus- trial dispute in respect of the non-employment of the said .J. P. Gurjar arose between the parties which dis- pute was at the material time taken in appeal before the Industrial Court (Textiles & Hosiery), Kanpur. During the pendency of those proceedings, some time in August, 1950, the respondent 4 made a confession in regard to the said theft implicating the respond- ents 2 and 3 also therein. On the 29th August, 1950, the management of the appellants presented to the respondents 2, 3 and 4 c]large-sheets in respect of the said theft and suspended them on the 30th August, 1950, from their senice. They also made an application on the 2nd September, 1950, to the Addi- tional Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur, asking for permission to dismiss the respondents 2, 3 and 4. 'rhe Additional Regional Conciliation Officer, Kanpur, instituted an enquiry, heard the respondents 2, 3 and 4, considered the evidence which was led before him by the appellants as well as the respondents 2, 3 and 4 and made an order on the 12th October, 1950, according to the appellantA permission for the dismisrnl of the ·782 SUPREME COURT REPOR'fS [i953J 1953 respondents 2, 3 and 4. The respon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.