LexG.E.C. (P) LTD. NAINI, ALLAHABAD versus THE LABOUR COURT, ALLAHABAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- - A G.E.C. (P) LTD. NAINI, ALLAHABAD v. THE LABOUR COURT, ALLAHABAD August 5, 1968 543 ,fi [J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 0 E F G H Misconduct-Illegal strike-:--Dismissal of workmen who had been given warning about an earlier stfike-Warning held wrongly given- Punishn1ent after taking into account such warning cannot be upheld. There was a strike in the establishment of the appellant company bet- ween 18th and 30th March, 1964, and again a token strike on 10th April, 1964 .. For the misconduct of going on the first strike some of the work- men were charged and given a warning. The second strike was held to be illegal by an enquiry officer and six of the workmen who had been given a warning in respect of the first strike were dismissed fo-r taking part in the second strike also. The Labour Court held that in the com- promise that had ended the first strike the company had given the under- talcing that it would not take any action by way of punishment against the workmen, and therefore the watning in respect of the first strike which was given only a1fter the enquiry report relating to the second strike had been already received, was not only not bona fide but illegal. Because this warning was taken into account against the six workmen who .were dis- missed, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal, although hold- ing that the second strike was illegal because of want of notice under sub--s. 4 of s. 6-S. of the U.P·. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The com- pany appealed to this Court. HELD: (i) The Labour Court rightly held on the facts that the warning given to the workmen in respect of the· first strike was not only not bona fide but also against the terms of the settlement by which the first strike was ended. [548 G] (ii) The second strike was, as held by the Labour Court, illegal and therefore 'misconduct' under sub-cl. (2) df cl. 21 of the Standing Orders of the company. Any punishment imposed under cl. 22 of the said Orders in respect of an illegal strike after a fair enquiry, being a managerial function would not riormally be interfered with. But in the present case the management was not entitled to take into account the warning given in respect of the first strike in view df the. settlement it had entered into with the workers to end that strike. The Labour Court was therefore again right in holding the punishment of dismissal df the six respondents as vindictive and unjustified. [548 H-549 E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 958 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated September 16, 1965 of the Labour Court, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 78 of 1965. G. R. Gokhale, 0. P. Malhotra and J.B. Dadachanji, for the appellant. R. V asudev Pillai and Subodh Markandeya, for re..§Jlondents Nos. 2(a) to 2(k). 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] I S C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. In this appeal, by special leave, the ques- tion, that arises for consideration, is as to whether the award of the Labour Court, AJlahabad, dated September 16, 1965;dircct- ing the reinstatement of six workmen, referred to in the order of reference, is justified. The facts leading up to the award may be referred :o. There was a strike, in the establishment of the appellant company, from March 18, 1964. There was a meeting, of the District Industrial Relations Advisory Committee, on March 29, I 964, presided over by the District Magistrate of the area. Representatives of the management and the workmen, attended the said meeting. The proceedings of the meeting show that the Advisory Committee, decided to appeal to the appellant not to take any action, against the workers, on the ground that they had on strike, from March I 8 1964. There was an appeal, to the District Magistrate, Allahabad. to release, as a gesture of goodwill, the arrested employees of the company, who were not involved in violence. The Union, repre- senting the workers of the appellant, in turn, decided to call off the strike and directed the workmen to resume work with effect from the morning of March 30, I 964. There is no controversy that the strike was called off, and certain workers, who had been arrested in connection with the strike, were also released from jail, on March 29, 1964 itself. This strike will be referred to, as the first strike, in the course of this judgment. On March 20, I 96
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.