LexLALLA RAM versus MANAGEMENT OF D.C.M. CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
82
LALLA RAM
V.
MANAGEMENT OF D.C.M. CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. & ANR.
February 16, 1978
[\(". R. KRISHNA IYER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J
Industrial Dispurcs Act 1947 s. 33(2)(b)-Scope and 1;at1<re of enquiry by
the Tribunals on an application u/s 33(2) (b).
The appellant, a worker under Respondent No. 1 was occupying one of the
jhuggies on the plot adjacent to the mill of Respondent No. 1.
On receipt of a
report fron1 ,the seritry, Dharam Singh, that one Sheo Ram had started making
an unauthorised construction on the said plot, Shyau.1 Singh, Assistant Security
Officer of Respondent No. 1 who \Vas in-charge of prevention of encroachment
and further unauthorised construction, proceeded to the spot accompanied by
two members of bis s:taff to investigate into the matter. . On Ending Sheo Singh
constructing a new jhuggi in front of his existing jhuggi Shyam Singh pleaded
\vith the forn1er and asked hin1 to desist from cons1,ructing th.;: new jhuggi. While
he was so engaged the appellant made his appearance along \vith 8 to 10 jhu$gi
dwellers, manhandled Shyam Singh, hurled highly provbcativc invectives at him
and his con1panions, and bade them to quit on pain of dire con:'lequences. Later,
the managen1ent of respondent 1 det<liled two of its officers to enquire into the
aforesaid n1isbehaviour towards and attempt to assault Shyam Singh who was
discharging his. official duties.
The inquiry officers found that the acts comn1itt-
ed by the appellant \Vere subversive of indiscipline and constituted misconduct, as
conten1plated by the Standing Order 27 ( 1) as applicable
to
the
appellant.
Agreeing wi,;h the findings, the General Manager of Respondent No. 1 passed
an order on Atay 2, 1968, disn1issing the appellant from service.
Since, however,
an industrial dispute was pending, the General A-tanager directed the appellant
to take his final dues together with one month's pay in lieu of notice and n1ade
an application on the same day to the Industrial Tribllnal, Delhi, seeking its
approval of the order of the appellant's dismissal, as required by s. 33(2)(b)
of the Act.
The Additional Indu.strial Tribunal, Delhi, refused by its order dt. April 23,
1969 to accord its approval to the appellant's dismissal on the grounds viz.,
that the disciplina1y c:ction taken against the appellant \Vas mbconceived; that
since there was no rational connection bet\veen the employ1nent ot the appellant
and Shyam Singh in regard to the affairs of the D.C.tvl.
Chen1ical
\Vorks,
Standing Order 27(1) was not 'attracted and that it was really a case of civil
dispute between the Company and jhuggi d\vellers who \Vere long being pres-
:-urised to surrender possession of the area to the Company and the machinery
of security staff of D.C.J\..1. \vas pressed into service for that purpose.
Against
the sriid orders, Respondent No. 1 moved the High Court under Art. 226 of
the Constitution. The High, Court a1lowed ·the petition holding that since there
was a clear finding of the Inquiry Officers about the existence of rational connec-
tion hetwccn the aforesaid incident and the duties of the appellant. and Shyam
Singh nnd
then:~ wns nothing in 1he order of the Tribtmal to shO\V that the
Inquiry Officers had arrived at that finding without any evidence, it was not
open to the. Tribunal to come to a different conclusion on the facts or to hold
that the present was a case of victimisation and then to refuse its approval. The
IIigh Court quashed the order and directed the Additional Tribunal to consider
the aforesaid application of Respondent No. 1 in the light of its judgment.
Dismissing the app~::il by special leave, the. Court
HELD:
l. Though it is true that a private quarrel bet\\'een an employee and a
stranger with which the employer is not conce1ned falls outside the categories
of trnisconduct, acts which are subversive of discipline an1ongst employees or
)
'
.;
-
•
\-
LALLA RAM V. D.C.M. CHEMICALS
83
misconduct or misbehaviour by an employee which is directed against another
A
employee of the concern may in certain circumstances constitu~e misconduct so
as to form the ba5is of an order of dismissal or discharge.
[880-E]
Tata Oil Co. Ltd. v. Its Worknien [19641 7 SCR 555 and Ag1u111i (~V.fvf.) v.
Badri Das & Ors. [1963] 1 LLJ 684 referred to.
2. The extent of jurisdiction exercisnble by an appropriate authority under
s. 33(2J(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is verExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.