JAHIRUDDIN versus K. D. RATHI, FACTORY MANAGER, THE MODEL MILLS NAGPUR LTD.

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 660 · Decided: 22-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

JAIDRUDDIN 
v. 
K. D. RATID, FACTORY MANAGER, TIIE MODEL MILLS 
NAGPUR LTD. 
November 22, 1965 
(P. :8. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, V. RAMASWAMI 
AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 
(Act 23 
of 1947), s. 16--Dismissal within exemption 
in force-
Withdrawal of exemption-Application to Labour 
Commissioner 
for 
C 
reinstatement-If lies. 
The State of Bombay by a notification under the Bombay Relief 
Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act 1958 declared a Mill a 'relief un-
dertaking' and exempted it from the applicability of s. 16 of the C.P. 
and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. During the period 
the exemption was in force, the appellants-employees of the Mill abs-
tained from work and were dismissed for joining an illegal strike. 
D 
After the exemption was withdrawan and was no longer in operation, 
the employees filed applications before the Labour Commissioner claim· 
ing reinstatement with back wages. The Labour Commissioner allowed 
·, • 
the applications. The Mill preferred revisions to the Industrial Court 
which were allowed. In writ fetitions filed by the employees, the High 
Court confirmed the finding o the Industrial Court, that the employees 
had no right to file applications under s. 16 and the applications filed 
• 
by them before the Labour Commissioner were not maintainable. 
In 
E 
appeal to this Court. 
HELP : The High Court was in error in holding that the applications 
were not maintainable. 
The right of an employee to claim re-instatement on a wrongful dis-
missal existed de hors s. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial 
Disputes Settlement Act. Section 16 provides a forum for a dismissed 
F 
employee to claim reinstatement but does not create a right. The effect 
of an exemption granted by the notification issued under the Bombay 
Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, is not to destroy the right 
but to suspend the remedy prescribed by s. 16 for enforcing that right 
during the period when the exemption remains in force. 
The right can 
be enforced by a dismissed employee by restoring to the provisions of 
s. 16 of the Act provided he makes the application within six months 
from the date of his dismissal. [668 EJ 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nq. 156 of 
1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
August 12, 1963 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in 
Special Civil Application No. 315 of 1962. 
H 
V. P. Sathe and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants. 
• 
-
• 
JAHIRUDDIN v. K. D. RATH! (Raju, J.) 
661 
• 
A. 
M. N. Phadke, J.B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder 
c 
Narain, for "respondents Nos. 1 and 3 . 
N. S. Bindra and B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondent No. 4. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Satyanarayana Raju, J. This is an appeal, by Special Leave~ 
against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High 
Court dismissing an application for the issue of a Writ of certiorari 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the State 
Industrial Court at Nagpur. 
For a proper appreciation of the questions that have been 
raised in the appeal, it would be necessary to state the material 
facts. 
The Model Mills, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the 
Mills) is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian 
Companies Act. On July 18, 1959, in exercise of the powers 
D conferred by s. 18-A of the Industries (Development and Regula-
tion) Act, 1951, the Central Government took over the manage-
ment of the Mills and appointed the 3rd respondent as the 
authorised Controller of the Mills. 
On March 25, 1960 the State 
of Bombay (now the State of Maharashtra), in exercise of the 
powers conferred by ss. 3 and 4 of the Bombay Relief Under-
Jt takings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to 
as the Bombay Act) made a notification declaring the Mills to 
be a "relief undertaking" for a period of one year commencing 
from March 26, 1960 and ending with March 25, 1961. The 
appellants, eight in number, w'~re, at the relevant time, the per-
manent employees of the Mills. It would be convenient to refer 
F 
to them as "employees''. On December 15, 1960, when the 
notification made by the State Government under the Bombay 
Act was in force, the employees abstained from work. Thereupon, 
the 1st respondent who is the Factory Manager of the Mills issued 
notices to the employees to show cause wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.