BINNY LTD versus WORKMEN AND ANR.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 17-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

518 
BINNY LID. 
v. 
'IllEIR WORKMEN AND ANR. 
February 17, 1972 
(C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND G. K. MITTER, Ji.] 
Industrial Dwputes Act (14 of 1947), s. 10(1)-Dlsmlssal of. em-
ployee-Natural Justice--Opportµnit:y to cross examine witness lJ.Ot given-
Reference by Government, after refusal to· do so 
earlier-Competence 
lndustnal dispute-Jurisdiction to proceed after Union withdraws support 
of workman-Re-instatement, when may be ordered. 
The r .. pondent was alleged to· have behaved insolently towards .a 
superior and the matter was enquired into by the Manager of the appel-
lant-company. After the ex=ination of the witnesses, one of the appel-
lant's witnesses was recalled by the Manager to give any relevant infor-
mation regarding 
the respondent. The witness stated that the res~on­
dent had been absenting himself without leave on . a number of occasions 
and that a month back also he had behaved in an insolent manner thou,ih 
no disciplinary act.ion was then , taken. At that stage, the 
respondent 
intervened and said that it was a case of misunderstanding due to his 
habit Of talking in a loud voice. :rhe Manager did not ask the respondent 
if he wanted to cross examine the 
witness on his further 
testimony 
(though with respect to each witness earlier, he asked the respondent if 
he wanted to cross examine), or whether. he had any explanation to Offer, 
but passed an order finding the respondent guilty of the charge. In' the 
order he expressly recorded that the respondent Ind beien guilty of ab-
l!Onting himself without leave and that 'muc)l more than this he behaved 
in an . insolent manner earlier' and that in those circumstances he was 
not a person fit to be retained in service, The · Manall'J:r dismisoecl the 
respondent. The dispute whether the appellant was justified in tehninat-
ing tlr: &ervices Gf five workmen including the ~spondent, was referred 
to the Labour Court. During the pendency of the pfoceedings there was 
a settlement of the disputes between the workers' Union and the manaae-
. ment with regard to all the employees. exc.ept the ~spondent, and the 
Union withdrew .its support of the respondent. 
The Labour Court, while accepting the finding of the domestic tribu-
.nal that the respondent was guilty of misconduct, set aside the order of 
termination and ordered re'instatement on the ground that the respon-
·deht Wa!i not given an opportunity' to cross.ex.amine the witness or .. ex-
plain his testimony 'regarding the respondent';, past conduct. 
Jn appeal to this Court, it was contended that (I) the respondent never 
asked for the . opportunity and did not make a grievance of the denial of 
the opportunity, (2) the Governm,ent, having refused to refer the dispute 
on two previous occasions the reference. was in"t-alid as there was no 
material to show why the Government did Ygo ultimately, (3) tpe Labour 
Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter after the Union 
ceased to sponsor the respondent's case, and ( 4) it was not a fit case for 
re-instatement in ·view of the long lapse of time between the date• ,of 
dismissal and reference and that, if at Ill, . compensation 8hould have been 
awarded in lieu or··re-instatement'. 
· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
ll 
A 
.B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BINNY LTD. v. WORKMEN (Mitter, J.) 
519 
Dismissing the appea~ 
HELD : ( 1) (a) The record of the domestic tribunal demonstrates that 
the respondent was not given a chance either to cross-examine the witness · 
or to explain the evidence, regarding his past conduct. The intervention 
of the respondent could not be construed as his explanation or that it 
amounted to an admission of the truth of the evidence. f,524 A-El 
(b)Although the enquiry Officer found that the resp0ndent had be-
haved insolently_ towards his supelrior, he did not come to the conclusion 
that h1& solitary act of indiscipline was sufficient to warrant 
dismissal. 
fhe language of the order shows that it was the cumulative effect of the 
hpses in the past that resulted in the order. It was not a case where two 
separate charges had been framed against a delinquent and that they were 
of such a serious nature that the finding of guilt on any one would war-
rant dismissal. [526 B-E] 
' 
Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh, [1969] 3 S.C.R • .548, India Marine 
Service v. Their Workmen, [1963] 1 L.L.J. 122, Tata Oil Mills Co. v. 
Its Workmen, [1963] 2 L.L.J. 78, referred to. 
(2) (a) Under s. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Ac~ 1947, a refe• 
rence ma

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