LexINDIAN IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. & ANOTHER versus THEIR WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 667 INDIAN IRON & STEEL CO., LTD. & ANOTHER 'V. THEIR WORKMEN (and connected appeals) (BHAGWATI, S. K. DAs and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) Industrial dispute-lllegal strike-Lock-out-Notice lifting lock-out and asking workmen to resume work-Workmen's right to be taken back without condition-Workmen taken in custody by police- Refusal of leave-Discretion of the employer-Dismissal of workmen -Powers of the Industrial Tribunal to interfere. On account of the continued illegal stoppage of work, 'slow down' tactics, and strikes indulged in by the workmen despite the advice of their Union, the appellant company issued a notice dated August '23, 1953, that " .......... in consequence of the illegal strike .......... the Management has no option but to declare a lock-out of the entire works except the special shifts .... with effect from August 24, 1953 ...... The services of all other workers shall be deemed to be discharged with effect from August 24, 1953". Subsequently the company lifted the lock-out and gave notice on September 17, 1953 to the effect that " ..... . all employees on the works r9lls of the Company on August 23, 1953, and who wish to report for duty, must resume work .... on Sep- tember 18, 1953 .... " A third notice gave extension of time to the workmen to resume work. The question was whether the notice dated August 23, 1953, terminated the services of the respondent by discharging them with effect from August 24, 1953, and the notice dated September 17, 1953, merely gave him an opportu- nity of re-employment at the pleasure of the company on fulfil- ment of certain conditions. Held, that, on a construction of the notices, the expression _. .. shall be deemed to be discharged" had to be read in the contest of the declaration of a lock-out, ar.d the intention of the company was that the employees whose employment had been refused during the period of lock-out were to be permitted to resume work without any conditions if they reported for duty by a parti- cular date, and on fulfilment of a condition if they reported for duty after that date. Where some of the workmen who were taken in custody by the police applied for leave when in custody but were refused leave by the company acting under Standing Order No. 9, and the Labour Appellate Tribi:nal took the view that as the work- men were in custody the company was not justified in refusing leave, held, that whether in such circumstances leave should be granted or itot must be left to the discretion of the employer, un- less, it was proved, that it was a case of colurafile br mti/a fide exercise of power under the Standing Order. 1957 October 15. 1957 Indian Iron&: Steel Co., Ltd. v. Their Worknien 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] Burn and Co., Calcutta v. Their Employees, [1956] S.C.R. 781, followed. The powers of an Industrial Tribunal to interfere in cases of dismissal of workmen by the company, are not unlimited and the Tribunal does not act as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment of that of the management. It will interfere (I) when there is want of good faith, (2) when there is victimisa- tion or unfair labour practice, (3) when, the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, or (4) when on the materials the finding is completely baseless or perverse. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos . • 44, 45, 336, and 337 of 1957. "Appeals by special leave from the decisions dated 29th June, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta in Appeals Nos. Cal.-223, 226, 247 and 250 of 1955. M. C. Seta!tiad, Attorney-General for India, Dipak Datta Chaudhury and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellants in C. A. No. 44 and respondents in C. A. No. 45. M. C. Setaivad, Attornay~General for India, S. N. Mukherji and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellants in C.A. Nos. 336 and respondents in C. A. No. 337. S. K. Acharya, A run Kumar Dutt, D. L. Sen Gupta and Sukumar Ghosh, for the appellants in C.A. Nos. 45 & 337 and respondents in C. A. Nos. 44 & 336. 1957. October 15. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by s. K. Das, J. S. K. DAs J.-These four appeals by special leave arise out of certain labour disputes· between the em- ployer, Messrs. Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and the Indian Standard Wagon Company Limited, Burnpur, Asansol, (hereinafter compendious- ly referred to as the Company)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.