LexDELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO., LTD. versus SHRI RAMESHW AR DYAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
November zz. 590 StJPREME COURT REPORTS [1961) DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO., LTD. v. SHRI RAMESHW AR DYAL AND ANR. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Dismissed workman-Interim reinstate- ment by Tribunal-If valid-The Industrial Disputes Act, r947 (I4 of r947). s. 33A. One Sharda Singh, respondent, who was an employee of the appellant-mills was dismissed for disobeying the orders of the managing authority. He filed an application before the Indus- trial tribunal under s. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, i947, contesting his dismissal on various grounds, whereupon the tribunal passed an order to the effect that as an interim measure the respondent be permitted to work in _the appellant mills and if the management failed to take him back his full wages be paid from the date he reported for duty. The appellant mills then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court contesting the interim order of the Tribunal and the High Court held that the interim relief granted to the respondent was justified. On appeal by a certificate of the High Court, Held, that the interim order passed by the tribunal reinsta- ting the respondent was erroneous. Such an interim relief could not be given by the Tribunal as it would amount to prejudging the respondents' case and granting him tbe whole relief at the outset without deciding the legality of his dismissal after hear- ing the appellant employer. The Management, Hotel Imperial and-Ors. v. Hotel Workers' Union, A.LR. 1959 S. C. 1342, and Punjab National Bank v. All- India Punjab National Bank Employees' Federation, A.LR. 1960 S. C. 160, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 353 of 1959. Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 22, 1958, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in Civil Writ No. 257-D of 1957. M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, S. N. Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. V okra, for the A ppella.nt. G. S. Pathak, R. L. Anand and Janardan Sharma, for the respondent No. 2. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 591 1960. November 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ddhi Cloth & WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal on a certificate General Mills granted by the Punjab High Court. Sharda Singh Co., ltd. (hereinafter called .the respondent) was in the service Shri R:·meshwar of the appellant-mills. On August 28, 1956, the res- Dyal & Another pondent was transferred from the night shift to the - day shift in accordance with par,a. 9 of the Standing w an&hoo J. Orders governing the workmen in the appellant-mills. At that time an industrial dispute was pending bet- ween the appellant-mills and their workmen. The transfer was to take effect from August 30, 1956; but the respondent failed to report for work in the day shift and was marked absent. On September 1, 1956, he submitted an app.lication to the General Manager to the effect that he had reported for duty on August 30, at 10-30 p.m. and had worked during the whole night, but had not been marked present. He had a.gain gone to the mills on the night of August 31, but was not allowed to work on the ground that he had been transferred to the day shift. He complained that he had been dealt with arbitrarily in order to harass him. Though he said that he had no objection to carrying out the orders, he requested the manager to intervene and save him from the high-handed action taken against hi~, adding that the mills would be res- . ponsible for his wages for the days he was not allowed to work. On September 4, 1956, he made an application to the industrial tribunal, where the previous dispute 4 was pending, under s. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. XIV of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act) and complained that he had been transferred without any rhyme or reason from one shift to another and that this amounted to alteration in the conditions of his service, which was prejudicial and detrimental to his interest. As . this alteration was made against the provisions of s. 33 of the Act, he prayed for nece8'8ary relief from the tribunal under s. 33-A. On Septemb~r 5; 1956-, the General Manager replied to the letter of September 1, and told the respondent that his transfer from one shift to the other had been ordered on • 592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] '960 August 28, and he had been told to report for work in D•lhi Cloth & the day shi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.