LexKALINDI & OTHERS versus TATA LOCOMOTIVE & ENGINEERING CO., LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- - ,, 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 407 KALINbI & OTHERS v. Kalindi TA'.l'A LOCOMOTIVE.& ENGINEERING CO., LTD. "· Tata Locomotive .:;,. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and Eng. Co. Ltd. K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Enquiry by management into misconduct of workman-Representation by representative of Union-Whether work- man entitled to. A workman against whom an enquiry is being held by the management has no right to be represented at such enquiry by a representative of his union, though the employer in his discretion, can and may allow him to be so represented. In such enquiries fairly simple questions of fact as to whether certain acts of misconduct were committed by a workman or not fall to be considered and the workman is best suited to conduct the case. Ordinarily, in enquiries before domestic tribunals a person ·accused of any misconduct conducts his own case and so it cannot be said that in any enquiry .against a workman natural justice demands that he should be represented by a representative of his Union. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 101 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated 2nd March, 1959, of the Labour Court, Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in Misc. Cases Nos. 73, 76, 77, 79-82, 84-90 of 1958. N. G. Chatterjee, A. K. Dutt and B. P. Maheshwari for the appellants. Sohrab D. Vimadalal, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dada- chanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents. 1960. March 25. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J.-When the management of -an in- dustry holds an enquiry into . the charge!'! against a workma:µ for the purpose uf deciding what action if any, should be taken against him, has the workman a right to be repre8ented by a representative of his Union at the enquiry? That is the principal question raised in this appeal. The 14 appellants, all workmen in Mfs. Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co., Ltd., Jam- shedpur, were dismissed under the orders of the com- pany's management on the result of an enquiry held Das Gupta]. 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [11160] r96o against them. As industrial .IHsputes between these . . workmen and the company were at that time pending K":;•d• ·before the Industrial Tribunal,· Bihar, the company Tata Lo,;motive & filed applications purporting to be under s. 33 of the Eng. co. Ltd. Industrial Disputes Act praying for approval of the action taken by it against the workmen. Workmen Das Gupta J · also filed applications under s. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act complaining of the action taken against them by the company. The applications of the com- pany under s. 33 were however ultimately held to have become infructuous and the applications under s. 33A were only considered and disposed of by the Labour Court. The applications of these 14 appel- lants were however dismissed. Against that order the appellants have preferred this appeal after having obtained special leave for the purpose. The common contention urged on behalf of the appellants was that the enquiry on the results of which the orders of dismissal were based was not a proper_ and valid enquiry inasmuch as the workmen were not allowed to be represented at the enquiry by a representative of the J amshedpur Union to which these workmen belonged. It has been urged that fair play demands that at such an enquiry the workman concerned should have reasonable assistance for examination and cross-examination of the witnesses and for seeing that proper records are made of the proceedings. It has been argued that a representative of the workmen's Union is best suited to give such assistance and in the absence of such assistance the workman does not get a fair chance of making his case before.the Enquiry Officer. It appears that when on June5, 1953, requests were made on behalf of the several workmen that they shoulc;l be allowed to be represented by a representative of the Jamshedpur Mazdoor Union at the enquiry to conduct the same on workmen's behalf, the management rejected this request but informed the workmen that they could, if they so desired, be represented by a co-worker from the workmen's own department at the enquiry. The question which arises therefore is whether this refusal of the workmen's request to be represented at the - ~· ' - • -r . " 3 S.0.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 409 enquiry by a representative of their Union vitiated the I96o enquir
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.