LexGUJARAT STEEL TUBES LTD. versus GUJARAT STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
146 A GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LTD. v. GUJARAT STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA N<Wember 19, 1979 D [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, D. A. DESAI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1941-Section llA-Scope· of-Whether the arbitra- tor could exercise the powers conferred on; a Tribunal under seutlon 11A of the Act and interfere with the punishment awarded by the management to the work- men. C Constitution o'f' India, 1950, Article· 227-Power of the lfigh Court to inter· /ere with the decision of the management and revise the puni.Thment to the· delinquent workmen. Model Standing orders made under Section 15(2) of the Industrial Employ• ment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946-M.S.Os. 23, 24 and 25 scope of-Whether the discharge en masse of workmen valid. D Value rision of Indian Industrial Jurisprudence-Conrlitution of India- E F G Articles 39, 41, 42, 43 43A and the Golden Rule for the Judicial resolution of '!" industrial dispute. The appellant manufactures steel tubes in the outskirts of Ahmedabad city. It started its business in 1960i went into production since 1964 and waggled from infancy to adulthood with snli1ing profitsJ and growling workers, punctuated by smouldering demands, strikes and settlement until there brewed a confron- tation culminating in a head-on collision following upon certain unhappy happenings. A total strike ensued whose chain reaction was a whole..gale termi- nation of all en1ployees followed by fresh recruitment of workmen defacto breakdown of the strike and dispute over restoration of the removed workmen. As per the last settlem'ent between the management and the workmen of 4th August, 1972, it was not open to the workmen to resort to a strike till the expiry of a period of five years; nor could the1 management decfare· a lock out till then. Any dispute arising between the parties, aiccording to the terms arrived nt were to be sorted out through negotiation or, failing that by recourse to arbitTation. The n1atter was therefore, referred to an arbitrator and the arbitrator by his award held the oction cf the management warranted. The respondent .Fhallenged the decision of the arbitrator under Article 226/227 of the Con· stitution and the High Court of Gujarat reversed the award and substantially directed reinstat~ment. Hence the appeals both by the Management a-nd the workmen. Di:sroissing the appeals and modifying the awards substantially, the Court HELD : (By Majority) H Per Iyer J. 011 behalf of D. A. Desai J. and himself. • \ ~ ' (i) The basic assumption is that the strike was not only illegal but also .,., unjustified. [210 HJ GUJARAT STEEL TUBES V. MAzPQOR SABHA 147 (ii) Tho management did .punish its 853 workmeru when it discharged them for reasons of misconduct set out in separate but .integrated _proceedings; even though with legal finesse, the formal order was phrased in harmless verbalism. (211 Al (iii) The action taken under the general law or the standing orders, was illegal in rhe absence ·of in<lividualised charge &beets,. proper hearing and personalised punishment, if found guilty. None of these steps having been taken, the discharge orders \Vere still born. But, the management could. as in this case it did, offer to make out the delinquency of the employees El4ld the arbitrator had, in such cases, the full jurisdiction to adjudge de novo both gllilt and punishment. [211 B-C] (iv) Section tJA of the Industrial Disputes Act~ 1947 does take in an .arbi~ trator too, and in ttm~ case, the arbitral reference, apairt from section 1 lA is plenary in scope. [211 C-D] (v) Article 226 of the Constitution, however restrictive in practice is a pcwer wide enough in all conscience, to be a friend, in need when thel summons. comes in a crisis from a victim of injustice; and more importantly this extra--ordinary reserve power is unsheathed to gnmt final relief without necessary recourse ta a remand. What the Tribunal may in its discre<tion do the High Court too under D· Article 226, can, if facts compel so. [211 D-E] · (vi) The Award, in the instant case, suffers from a fundamental :flaw thait it equates an illegal and unjustified· strike with brozen misconduct by every workman without so much as identification of thei charge against each, after adverting to the gravamen of his misconduct meriting dismissal. Passive :Partici- pation in a strike which is both illegal and unjustified does not ipso facto invite dismissal o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.