LAXMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS versus NAND KISHORE SINGH.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 746 · Decided: 04-10-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
October 4 
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
LAXMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS 
v. 
NAND KISHORE SINGH. 
[1956] 
[BHAOWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, s. K. DAS and 
GOVINDA MENON JJ.) 
Industrial Dispu!e-Application fm· permission to dismiss a 
workman-Resolution passed at a meetina of the Labour Union 
for removal of the General Manager-Vice-President of the Union 
addre'5ing the meeting to instigate the workers, if guilty of misconduct 
and indiscipline-Refusal to answer queries bv the General Manager, 
if an act of insubordination-Theory of dual capacity, if tenablc-
Dismissal, if can be permitted on a ground not included in the charge 
-Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act (XLVIII of 1950) 
-U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 19<1,7 (U. P. Act XXVIIl of 1947), 
•· a, Standing Orders, cl. L(l)(j). 
The respondent,• steno-typist and the Vice-President of the 
Labour Union, was charged by the appellant with misconduct and 
indiscipline under clause L(l)(j) of the Standing Orders of the Gov· 
emment of Uttar Pradesh for instigating the workmen to pas• a 
resolution for the removal of the General Manager by a defamatory 
speech delivered at a meeting of the Union. The question in issue 
was whether_ the respondent by doing so had committed "any act 
subversive of discipline" within the meaning of that clause. In 
course of the correspondence with the General Manager over the 
matter, as also during the enquiry made by him, the respondent took 
up the attitude that be, as a steno·typist, was not answerable to his 
employers for his activities as Vice-President of the Union outside 
the factory area and persistently refused to answer questions 
categorically put to him by the General Manager. The appellant 
applied to the Labour Appellate Tribunal under s. 22 of the Indus-
trial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act of 1950 for permission to 
dismiss the respondent. That application having been refused the 
appellant obtained Special Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court 
and it was contended that the passing of the resolution and the 
refusal to answer questions in course of the correspondence and the 
enquiry amounted to acts subversive of discipline and the respon · 
dent was liable to be dismissed. 
Held, that it was perfectly legitimate for the Union to pass the 
re•olution they did and no guilt either of a breach of the Standing 
Orders or of committing a.n act subversive of discipline could attach 
to the respondent for what part he took in the meeting as Vice-
President of the Union and the order of dismissal passed by the 
Labour Appellate Tribunal must be affirmed. 
That where, as in the present case, the members of the Union 
were of opinion that the circumstances warranted the resolution 1 it 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
747 
was not for the court to scrutinise the correctness or otherwise of 
the reasons for it. 
Held further that the respondent was primarily an employee 
of the appellant before he could be anything else and was in duty 
bound to answer such queries as were put to him by the General 
Manager and his persistent refusal to do so, on the pretext of a dual 
capacity, amounted to insubordination which would have justified 
his dismissal but the appellant having omitted to include this as a 
ground in the charge-sheet, which was served on the respondent 
and formed the basis of the enquiry, could not be allowed to rely 
on it. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
162 of 1954. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the 21st day of July 1953 of the Labour 
Appellate Tribunal of India, Lucknow in Miscellane-
ous Case No. C-III-33 of 1952. 
H.J. Umrigar and R. A. Govind for the appellant. 
B. P. Maheshwari for the respondent. 
1956. October 4. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by-
BHAGWATI J.-The Labour Appellate Tribunal of 
India at Lucknow dismissed the application of the 
appellant made under section 22 of the Industrial 
Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, for permis-
sion to dismiss the respondent, its workman, and the 
appellant obtained from this Court Special Leave to 
Appeal against that order. 
The respondent has been working as a Steno-typist 
with the appellant since 3rd December, 1946, and is 
also the Vice-President of the Union of workers which 
is affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union 
Congres!l and is known as Chini Mills Mazdoor Sangh. 
One M. P. Singh has at all relevant times been and is 
still the General Manager of the appellant. 
The relat

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