BHARAT FORGE COMPANY LTD. versus AB. ZODGE AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 912 · Decided: 20-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BHARAT FORGE COMPANY LTD. 
v. 
AB. ZODGE AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 20, 1996 
[G.N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
S.11-A-Order of dismissal-Employer's prayer to lead evidence in 
support thereof-Rejected by the Industrial Tribunal-Upheld by the High 
Court-Whether justified-Held : Denial L.f opportunity to the employer to 
lead evidence in support of the order of dismissal not justified-Proceedings 
before the T1ibwial to be completed within six months-Employer to lead 
D fwther evidence within two months and the workmen to lead evidence within 
one month thereafter. 
Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co., of India (P) Ltd. 
v. Management and Ors., [1973] 3 SCR 587, Shankar Chakrava11i v. Britan-
nia Biscuit Co. Ltd. andAnr., [1979] 3SCR1165; Workmen of Motipur Sugar 
E Factory (P) Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Fact01y (P) Ltd., (1963) I~ LU 163 SC; 
State Bank of India v.A.K Jain, (1971) III LU 599 SC; Delhi Cloth General 
Mill Co. Ltd. v. Ludh Budh Singh, (1972) 1 LU 180 SC, relied on. 
Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1963) 3 SCR 
F 
461) and In re: Cooper Engineering Ltd., (1975) 2 LU 379 SC, referred 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4178 of 
1996. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.2.90 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 5281 of 1989. 
G.B. Pai, O.C Mathur and Ms. Meera Mathur for the Appellants. 
Madan G. Phadnis Ms. Gunwant Dara and P. Gaur for the Respon-
H dents. 
912 
. f 
BHARAT FORGE CO. LTD. v. AB. ZODGE 
913 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
Leave granted . 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short question which 
arises for consideration of this Court is whether the Industrial Tribunal was 
justified in refusing the prayer of the appellant company the employer to B 
lead evidence in support of the order of dismissal passed against the 
respondent-employee. By the impugned Judgment, the Bombay High 
Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in refusing to give permission 
to the employer to lead evidence before the Tribunal in justification of the 
order of dismissal. 
Mr. Pai, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has 
submitted before us that such permission has been refused by the Tribunal 
c 
by indicating that although the enquiry was properly held, the finding in 
such enquiry was perverse and in such circumstances, no opportunity to 
lead evidences should be given. Such view according to Mr. Pai is not D 
justified inasmuch as it has been held in Management of Ritz. 171eatre (P) 
Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1963] 3 SCR 461 that even when finding is perverse 
(see page 468) the whole issue is at large before the Tribunal and it would 
be entitled to deal with the merits of the dispute itself, when it would be 
open to the employer to adduce additional evidence, Mr. Phadnis, learned E 
senior counsel appearing for the respondents, contends that that was the 
position in law before insertion of Section 11 A in the Industrial Disputes 
Act, but this section has altered the position. 
Mr. Pai's submission is that this is not so. In support of his conten-
tion, he has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in Workmen F 
of Messrs Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. v. Management 
and Ors., [1973) 3 SCR page 587. In the said decision, the legislative 
changes brought about on the power of the Tribunal to decide the question 
or correctness and propriety of the order of termination or dismissal of 
service of an employee under Section 11 A were taken into consideration. 
It has been indicated in the said decision that the Tribunal under Section G 
11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act is clothed with the power to assess the 
evidences placed before the Tribunal for deciding as to whether the 
decision/made by the employer was justified or not and such power is not 
fettered in any manner. In the said decision, the earlier decisions of this 
Court were also considered and ten principles emerging from such H 
914 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
decisions have also been culled out. It also appears that the contention 
sought to be raised on behalf of the workmen that the right of the employer 
to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, for the first time since recognised 
by this Court in its various earlier decisions, has been taken away by Section 
11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been accepted. It has been 
B indicated in the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.