FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED versus THE WORKMEN EMPLOYED REPRESENTED BY FIRESTONE TYRE EMPLOYEES UNION

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 22-07-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
20 
FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY 
OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 
v. 
THE WORKMEN EMPLOYED REPRESENTED BY 
FIRESTONE TYRE EMPLOYEES' UNION 
July 22, 1981 
[A.C. GUPTA, V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Industrial dispute-Jurisdiction-Whether the Tribunal could address itself 
only to a question of discriminatian without confining its adjudication to those 
points and matters incidental thereto, as specified in the industrial dispute-Indus-
trial Disputes Act, 1947 section JO ( 4} scope of. 
The appellant company carries on the business of manufacturing tyres, 
tubes and several other products in Bombay,, The workmen in the company's 
tyre-curing department adopted a deliberate "go-slow" policy resulting in fall in 
production. On September 14, 1967 the management put up a notice asking the 
workmen to desist from continuing with the go-slow 
tactics. 
The notice, 
however, had no effect and from October 4, 1967 the workmen in the tyre-curing 
department went on a strike. 
Between October 27 and 31, 1967 the management issued chargesheets to 
102 workmen alleging that they had resorted to wilful go-slow. The workmen 
refrained from participating in the inquiries conducted by three inquiry officers 
and the inquiry reports went against the workmen. The management accepted 
the findings of the inquiry officers and dismissed the workmen other than those 
who were "protected workmen'' as defined in the explanation to section 33 (3) (b) 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; an application was made under the said 
provision for permission to dismiss the "protected workmen". As a reference 
concerning an earlier dispute was pending before the lribunal, an application 
was also made under section 33 (2) ( b) of the Act for approval of the action of 
the management in dismissing the workmen. 
Subsequently, on April 17, 1968 the parties reached a settlement, Under 
the settlement the strike was withdrawn, the dispute concerning the dismissal of 
G 
the workmen was referred for adjudication by a joint application made by the 
parties under section 10 (2) of the Act, and 76 of the dismissed workrnen were 
re-employed till the disposal of the adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. The 
demand set out in para 1 (A) of the Schedule to the order of reference relates to 
25 workmen who were not reinstated and demand in para 1 (B) of the Schedule 
relates to the 76 workmen who were temporarily reinstated. Following a further 
H 
settlement all the 76 workmen mentioned in para 1 (B) were taken back and 
made permanent and the demand set out in Para 1 (B) was allowed to be with· 
drawn as not pressed by the award dated January 10, 1973. In the meantime, 
-
-
-
• 
-
FIRESTONE v. WORKMEN (Gupta, J.) 
21 
13 out of the 25 workmen covered by demand I (A) also reached a settlement 
A 
with the management and withdrew the dispute relating to them. The dispute 
on which the impugned award was n1ade was thus restricted to demand in 
para l (A) concerning 12 workmen only out of25. The Tribunal by its award 
dated December 9, 1976 directed the company to reinstate these 12 workmen on 
the ground, inter alia, that they were denied for no valid reason the same treat-
ment meted out to 76 other workmen and that the management was thus guilty 
of discrimination and unfair labour practice, Hence the appeal by special 
B 
leave. 
Allowing the appeal in part and remitting the case to the Industrial Tribu-
nal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Tribunal travelled outside its jurisdiction in recording a 
finding of unfair labour practice and discrimination. In this case, the points of 
dispute were specified in the Schedule to the order of reference, and the Tribunal 
was, therefore, required to confine its adjudication to those points and matters 
that were incidental to them. From a reading of demands 1 (A) and 1 (B) as a 
whole it is clear that the demand for reinstatement in respect of both groups 
of workmen as made arises on the alleged invalidity of the action taken by 
the management in dismissing these workmen. The issue of unfair labour pactice 
or discrimination by reason of subsequent reinstatement on a permanent basis 
of some and not all the 25 workmen wa~ not a matter referred to the Tribunal 
for adjudication, nor it can be said to be in any way connected with 
or incidental to the right of reinstatement claimed by the 101 workmen from the 
date of their dismissal. The fairness of subsequent absorption of some workmen 
is a

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