LOKMATNEWSPAPERS PVT. LTD. versus SHANKAR PRASAD

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 907 · Decided: 19-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

t-
LOKMATNEWSPAPERS PVT. LTD. 
A 
v. 
SHANKAR PRASAD 
JULY 19, 1999 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND S.S.M. QUADRI, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Law: 
Industrial Disputes Act., 1947 : Sections 12(4) 20(2)(b), 33(1) and 
33(J)(b)-Conciliation proceedings-Discharge of workman-During C 
pendency of-Without permission from Conciliation Officer-Conciliation 
proceedings failed and investigation closed at 4.35 p.m.-Management 
discharged workman under S.25-F immediately at 5 p.m. on the very same 
day without permission from Conciliation Officer-Validity-Held, 
Conciliation proceedings continue even after closure of investigation under D 
S. 12(4)-Such proceedings are deemed to be closed when the failure report 
under S. 12(4) reaches the appropriate Government-Closure of investigation 
does not mean conclusion of conciliation proceedings-Proceedings which 
are not concluded are pending and proceedings which are pending cannot 
be said to be concluded-In the circumstances of the case, S.33(1) is violated 
since conciliation proceedings were pendings when the workman was E 
discharged-hence, penal liability under S.31(1) is attracted. 
Section 9-A and Schedule IV Item 10-Conditions of service-Change 
of-Notice of-Rationalisation, standardisation or improvement of plant or 
technique-Introduction of-Employer installed two photo-type composing 
machines initially on an experimental basis but later on a permanent basis- F 
No prior notice was issued to workmen under S.9-A before introduction of 
new scheme-This rendered some workmen in hand-composing department 
as surplus-Subsequently, notice under S. 9-A was issued stating that due to 
installation of the new machines no work could be given to these workmen 
and, therefore, they were being discharged-Held : If there is likelihood of G 
retrenchment of workmen no new scheme can be introduced without issuance 
of prior notice under S. 9-A-Introduction of such new scheme by itself would 
amount to alteration of conditions of service of workmen to their prejudice-
Notice under S. 9-A prior to introduction of such scheme is a condition 
precedent-Non-compliance with S.9-A renders change of conditions of service 
void ab initio-Issuance of notice after introduction of new scheme and H 
. 907 
908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 ,S.C.R. 
A discharging the surplus workmen is violative of S. 9-A-But if the proposed 
scheme is not likely to displace any existing workmen Item 10 of Sch. iv not 
attracted-Installation of new machines amounts to rationalisation, 
standardisation, or improvement of plant or technique within the meaning 
of Item JO of Sch. IV-Therefore, there is change of condition of service from 
B manual to mechanical working-Hence, prior notice under S.9-A is mandatory 
before installation of the new machines or before they become operative-
Discharge order of workmen being founded upon such illegal notice, set aside. 
Conditions of service-Change of-Introduction of new machines-
Issuance of notice prior to-Purpose of-Held : If dispute regarding 
C introduction of such new machines is referred to competent court for 
adjudication that court can decide whether the scheme is justified or is 
violative of S. 9-A-Also the court can decide whether retrenchment as a 
result of the new scheme is illegal and order reinstatement of workmen with 
back wages if such retrenchment is illegal. 
D 
Maharashtra (Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair 
Labour Practices) Act. I 97 I. 
Schedule IV Item I-Unfair labour practice-"Discharge" and 
"dismissal"-Connotation of-Held : The word "discharge" has wider 
connotations comprising of punitive as well as simpliciter discharge-But 
E the word "dismiss" is purely an order of penalty and that too of an extreme 
type- Discharge and dismissal cover different types of situations and 
circumstances under which they are passed-Principles of noscitur a sociis 
and ejusdem generis cannot be invoked in connection with Item I Sch. IV so 
that discharge may be construed as dismissal-Service Law. 
F 
Schedule IV Items I (a) to (g)-Discharge or dismissal-Burden of 
proof-Held : On the aggrieved employee to first show that he is discharged 
on dismissed from service and that such an order attracts any of the clauses 
(a) to (g) of Item I Sch. IV. 
G 
Schedule IV Items I (a), (d) and (f)-Applicability-Victimisation-
Emp/oyer installed two photo-type machines rendering some workmen in 
hand-composing department surplus-Such workmen transferred to another 
unit of empl

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