INDIA MARINE SERVICE PRIVATE LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN.

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 08-08-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 S.C.R. · 1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
575 
INDIA MARINE SERVICE· PRIVATE LTD. 
1962 
v. 
THEIR WORKMEN. 
(P. B'. GAJ])NDRAGADKAR, K. C. "DAS,. G~TA and 
Y 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
\ .? 
lndusirki,l Diipute~Dismis~al of e~ploy~e'--'in~bordi·. 
nation~Tribunal's power to re-in.~tate-Lock-out due· to illegal 
strike-Lock-out originally valid but found invalicl ldter-Olaim 
for wages for the perioil of lock-out.. 
' 
. 
• 
. 
I 
," 
B, a clerk in the appellant company, was found shouting 
and bel:\aving in a r:ide a.nd insolent manne~ ~it~ p.is superior 
officer.· In consequence of this incident a charge-sheet was 
issued ~o· him and he was asked to give his 'explan'ation for' 
his behaviour; he was also asked to give explanation fn reipect 
ofcc;rtain purchases made by him for the coffi.papy. '.Eventually" 
an enquiry was held by the Managing Director at which he 
found that two charges were made out, and on the basis of the 
findings the company dismissed B from his post.. In the letter 
by the Managing Director dated October 29, 19511, addressed 
to Bit was stated: "After giving, your matter .our very; careful 
consideration, we have, 
therefo~e, painfully come to the 
decision that in the interest cif discipline and Business you 
should be forthwith dismissed from our ser,vice .. "· rn· taking 
this action against you we have also taken into consideration 
your past record which is very much against you." The 
Industrial Tribunal considered that the findings were based 
not merely on the charges set out in the charge-sheet but on 
certain other charges which B was not given on opportunity . 
to explain, and, therefore, the enquiry was vitiated and the 
dismissal could not be sustained. The Tribunal proceeded 
to consider the evidence and held that the allegation of 
insubordination against B was not proved, •I:t, accordingly, 
oraered his re-instatement. 
. 
. Helcl, that the order of the Tribuna:1. was contr~ry to 
law; .that the Managing Director must be considered, in his 
letter; to have arrived at the conclusion that B's services 
should be terminated in the interest of1discipline. though he 
had added one sentence to give. a.dditionill weight to the 
ilecision already arrived at; and that the Ttib.unal was not 
competent to go.behind the finding of the Managing Director 
and consider for itsci.lf the evidence adduced before 'him. r · · 
, 
' 
. 
' 
,· 
--
August 8. 
1061 
India Morine 
tTWic1 Pf'it1ate IJd. 
•• 
Their Workmen 
" 
576 
SB'I~R~ME COURT REPORTS (1963] . ·,.. ,, 
On acc0uilt ·or a sudden: ;trike iaun~hed by th~ _,;o~kmen 
on November 13, 1958, the company declared a lock-out. The 
lock-out continued till January·5, 1959 
on which date the 
company's works were re~opened, It w~s found that while 
the strike was unju~tifiabli: •. and: the: lock-out when it was 
ordered on November 13, 1958, was justified, its continuance 
for 53 days 
was' WhOlly: 'unrl!a:sonable .. and, 
therefore, 
unjustified. 
· 
. 
Held, that.where a strike is ·unjustified ·and· is· followed 
hy.a lock.out which has, because of its long du.ration;. become 
-qnjustificd, .the ·proper course for· an .. industrial tribunal .is to 
apportion the blame and direct the payment of the wages for 
the period of the lock-out which could be considered as 
1Jnjustified. 
· 
· · 
.. ' 
wh~re a sirike is unjustified and the l~ck~oµt is justified 
t~e workmen would not be entitled to any · wages at all, but 
where the, strike is justified qnd the lock-out is unjustified the 
workmen would b,e entitled to the entire wages for the period 
qf strike and lock-out. 
. 
. 
. 
CIVIL APPELLATE Jmi.lsmOTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 202 of 1962. 
:. . . Appeal by special leave from the Award dated 
January 31, 1961, of the Third Industrial Tribunal, 
West Benaal, in case No. VIII-28 of 1960. · 
. 
, 
o. 
I 
, 
• . , Y. Kumar, forthe appellant. 
, • B. P .. Maheshwari, for the respondents. 
' ' 
. , , 1962. August 8. 
'fhe Judgment of the Court 
was·delivered by' 
.. ' . ' 
' 
. 
MUDHOLKAR, J.,.-In this appeal ~y special 
leave against an a ward made by · the· '-!?hll'd I?dust· 
~ial,Tr.ib;unal, West ·Bengal,. two questions t\J'.IS,e for 
considerati<in. , The first is whether the dismissal 
of Robin Bose, Purchaser, ·was justified and the 
other is whether the appell&nt's employees were 
entitled to.' any w&ges for the period between 
NoveiQiber: 1;3,'Hl[l8; and January 4, 
J95~, dqring 
which there :was. a.look-out, . , , . 
-
' 
' . 
. 
' 
' 
' 
" 
.. 
• 
3 S.C

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