CENTRAL PROVINCES TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD. versus RAGHUNATH GOPAL PATWARDHAN

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 956 · Decided: 06-11-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
Dwarka Dass 
Bhatia 
v. 
The State of 
Jamm11and 
Kashmir 
Jagannadhadas J, 
1956 
NOf.lembet' 6. 
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956] 
In this case, the order of detention is based on the 
ground that the petitioner was engaged in unlawful 
smuggling activities relating to three commodities, 
cloth, zari and mercury of which two are found not 
to be essential articles. No material is placed before 
us enabling us to say that the smuggling attributed 
to the petitioner was substantially only of mercury 
~-
.~ 
and that the smuggling as regards the other two com-
modities was of an inconsequential nature. On the 
other hand the fact that the particulars furnished to 
the detenue on the 31st May, 1956, relate only to cloth 
and zari (we understand that tila referred to in para-
graph 3 is zari) indicates.that probably the smuggling 
of these two items was not of an inconsequential 
nature. 
We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the 
order of detention in this case is bad and must be 
quashed. We have accordingly quashed the order and 
directed the release forthwith of the detenue on the 
conclusion of the hearing on the 29th October, 1956. 
Petition allowed. 
CENTRAL PROVINCES TRANSPORT 
SERVICES LTD. 
. v. 
RAGHUNATH GOPAL PATWARDHAN. 
[BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, s. K. DAS and 
GovINDA MENON JJ.] 
Ind,istrial Dispute-Dismissal of Employee/or misconduct-
Oriminal prosecutir)n-Acquittal-Applicaticn for reinstatlm.ent and 
• .-
compensation-Maintainability-Dismissed Emp/(Jyee, Meaninq of-
Dispute between employer and an individ1tal employee-Whether an 
ind·ustrial dispute-Central Provinces and_ Berar Industrial Disp'ldes 
Settlement Act, 1947 (0. P. and Berar XXIII of 1947), ss. 2(10), 
(12) and 16-Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947), s. 2(k). 
In June, 1950, goods b~longing to the appellant company were 
stolen and as the result of an enquiry the respondent was dismissed 
on the ground of gross negligence and misconduct. 
He was pro-
secuted on a charge of theft but was acquitted in March, 1952, and 
thereupon he made an application before the Labour Commissioner 
•• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
957 
for reinstatement and compensation under s. 16(2) of the Central 
7956 
Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 194 7. 
It 
was contended for the appellant that the application was not main· Ce1ttral Prnvifices 
tainable because (1) the respondent was not an employee on the Tra1tsj;ort Sen·ices 
date of the application, having been dismissed Jong prior thereto 
Ud. 
and (2) his dispute was an individual and not an industrial dispute. 
v. 
, 
Raghtmath 6opal 
.Held, (1) that the definition of "employee' in s. 2(10) of the 
Pattt'ardhcm 
Act includes one who has been dismissed alld has ceased to be in 
service, and that the inclusive clause therein was inserted ex abun· 
danti cautela to repel a possible contention that employees dis-
charged under ss. 31 and 32 of the Act would not fall withins. 2(10), 
and cannot be read as importing an intention generally to exclude 
dismissed employees from that definition. 
Western India Aittomobile Association v. Industrial Trib11nal, 
Bombay ([1949] F.C.R. 321), relied on. 
(2) that a dispute between an employer and an employee who 
bas been dismissed and who makes a claim for i·einstatement and 
compensation, would be an industrial dispute within the meaning of 
s. 2(12) of the Act, and s. 16 enables the employee-to enforce his 
individual rights against an order of dismissal, discharge, removal 
or suspension. 
Qiiaere, whether a dispute simpliciter between an employer and 
a workman would be an industrial dispute within s. 2(k) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 (XIV of 194 7). 
C1v1L APPELLATE JuRISDIOTION: Civil Appeal No; 
320 of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated October 19, 1954 of the Labour Appel-
late Tribunal of India at Bombay in Appeal No. 76 
of 1954. 
H.J. Umrigar, E. J. Muharir and Rameshwar 
Nath, for the appellant. 
S. W. Dhabe and R. A. Govind, for the respon-
dent. 
1956. 
November 6. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-The Central Provinces 
Transport Services Ltd., Nagpur, was, at the material 
dates, a public limited company, and the respon-
dent was employed as a mechanic therein. In June 
1950, goods belonging to the Company were stolen, 
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956] 
1956 
and suspicion fell on the respondent. 
There was an 
C 
l P 
. 
enqui:ry into the

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