LexDELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS LTD. versus SHAMBHU NATH MUKHERJEE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
-
'
591
DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS LTD.
v.
SHAMBHU NATH MUKHERJEE & ORS.
October 3, 1977
[P. K. GOSWAMI, P. N. SHINGHAL AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. 2-A-Vires questioned in writ petition-
1¥hether statement of facts in support of legal ground dispensable-S. 2(00),
whether includes striking off name of worktnan from the rolls by manage1nent
without compliance with provisions of s. 25F(a) and (b)-Section 10, Hhether
violates Art. 14 of the Constitution of India
1
•
Shri Mukherjee was a Motion-setter employed by the appellants.
_His post
¥las abolished and he was given the job of a trainee on probation for the post of
A
B
Assistant Line-Fixer (Assistant Grade I). The management found him unsuit-
C
able for the job ,even after extending his probation period upto nine n1onths, and
offered him the post of a fitter on the same pay which he had received as
a
lvlotion-setter.
The letter stated that unless he accepted the offer v.1ithin two
days of r'ecciving it, his rejection of the Same would be presumed and he could
then be retrenched.
Shri Mukherjee wrote to the management to give him
another chance to show his efficiency in his job, but instead of replying to him.
the management struck off his name from the rolls, without complying with the
provisions of s. 2'5F(a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
A dispute
between the parties led to a reference to the Labour Court which resulted in an
D
award in favour of Shri Mukherjee. The management's
writ petition
was
rejected first by the Single Judge and then by the Division Bench of the l{igh
Court in appeal.
Dismissing the appeal by Certificate, the Court,
HELD : ( 1) Merely questioning the vi res of s. 2-A in the writ application
does not dispense with the requirement of stating facts in order to support the
legal ground.
If the ground was taken by making the appropriate
aJlegation
that the dispute relating to the termination of service of the workn1an was not
espoused by the union, it would have been necessary for the Labour Court to
call for a report from the Administration, and it would have been passible. for
the workman to sho"'· that his case was, in fact, espoused by a substantial num-
ber of workmen or by a Union.
[594 B-CJ
(2) No order, even under s. 27(c) of the Standing Orders car1
be;
passed
against the workman who is not absent for "more than eight consecutive days.''
Striking off his name from the rolls by the management, is termination of hii
service and such termination of service is retrenchment within the meaning of
s. 2(00) of the Act. Any order of retrenchment, in violation of the mandator}'
provisions of s. 25F(a), the proviso apart. and (b), is invalid. [595 H, 596 A.
G-DJ
(3) The law has been laid down by this Court holding that s. 10
of the
Act doei not violate Art. 14 of the Constitution. [595 EJ
Nif'11?/a Textile Finishint: Mill.~ Ltd. v. The 2nd PtJnjab Industrial Tribunal
[1957] SCR 335, applied.
O:VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1903 of 1970.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20-2-1970 of the Delhi High
Court in L. P. A. No. 66 of 1969.
E
F
G
Rameshwar Dial, Adarsl1 Dial and A. D. Mathur for the Appell-
H
ant.
For Respondent No. l (In person)
S92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] I s.c.R.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
GOSWAMI, J.-Th's is a fight between a Goliath and a dwarf in an
Industrial orena. The workman, who is the respondent before
us,
was "automatically struck off the rolls" by the management { appell-
ant) on August 24, 1965.
The management has been persistently
fighting him for the last twelve years having lost before the Labour
Court, the single Judge of the Delhi High Court and lastly before the
Division Bench of the High Court until the matter has landed in this
Court on certificate.
The facts may briefly be stated
The workman was recruited as a labourer in the Store in 1951.
After about six months he was promoted as a Fitter-Helper and after
C
about one and a half years he was promoted to the post of Motion-
Setter till 1964.
On October 1, 1964, there was sonie reorganisation
in the management's establishment and the post of Motion-Setter •
was abolished.
Ordinarily, therefore, the workman would hitve been
retrenched, but, in terms of a settlement between the management
and the representatives of the workmen, no employee was retrenched.
On the other hand, the management agreed Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.