M/S. BENGAL BHATDEE COAL CO. versus SHRI RAM PRABESH SJNGH & ORS.

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 23-01-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
709 
M/S. BENGAL BHATDEE COAL CO. 
v. 
SHRI RAM PRABESH SJNGH & ORS. 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANcnoo, M. HIDAYATULLAH and 
J. C. S11A:H, JJ.) 
Induatrial Di8pute-Ob8truction by some workmen of the 
work of other workmen-$how cauae notice served-Found guilty 
by the mai11<1gemsnt-Powera of the Tribunal-Whether unconscion-
able punishment would amount to 
victimiaation-!nduatrial 
Diapulea Act, 1947 (14 of 1~47), ••· 10, ?3(2)(b). 
The reapondents were the employees of the appellant and 
while a strike was going on in the concern of the appellant they 
physically obstructed the loyal and willing trammers from work-
ing in the colliery and insisted on other workmen to join them 
in the obstruction. A charge sheet was served on the respon• 
dents and they were asked to show cause why di<ciplinary action 
should not be taken against them. , The respondents submitted 
their explanation and on an inquiry held by the welfare 
officer they 
were 
found guilty 
and the welfare 
officer 
recommended their dismissal. The appellant filed an applica• 
tion before the Industrial Tribunal under s. 33 (2)(b) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act and the tribunal approved of the 
dismissal. Thereafter reference was made under s. IO of the 
Act and the present appeal is by way of special leave against 
the order of the Industrial Tribunal made in that reference. 
The Tribunal has held that the enquiry by the management 
was proper but it further held that the dismissal amounted to 
victimisation. 
The main question in the appeal was whether there wu 
victimisation. 
Hdd, where a domestic inquiry is held ~roperly the 
tribunal cannot sit in appeal on the finding• of the domestic 
tribunal and it can only interfere with the punishment inflicted 
u a result of the domestic inquiry where there is want of good 
f•ith or basic error or the violation of the principles of natural 
justice or where the findinga arc perverse or basclesa or the Cale 
ii one of victimisatloA. 
w ..... ,1. 
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL. 
Though in a cue of proved misconduct normally the 
imposition of a penalty may be within the discretion or the 
management there may by crues where the punishment of 
dismissal for misconduct proved may be unconscionable or so 
grotsly out of proporlion to the nature of the offence that the 
tribunal Jlll!Y be able to draw an Inference of victimisation 
merely from the punishment inflicted. Such was not the case 
here. 
Nalional Tolia= Co. of India. Ltd. v. Fourth Indu.trial 
Tnbwnal, (1960) 2 L.L.J. 175, referred to. 
I 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 24 of 1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the award dated 
November 23, 
1960, of the Central Government 
Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in reference No. 31 of 
1960. 
M. C. Se!;Jlvad, Nrmicoomar Chakrararty and 
B. P. Mahe8hwari, for the appellant. 
M. K. Ramamurlhi, for Dipat Datta Choudhri, 
for respondents Nos. l to 13. 
1963. January 23. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
WANcHoo, J~-This is an appeal by special 
leave agains• the order of the Central Government 
Industrial Tribunal, 
Dhanbad. The brief facts' 
necessary for present purposes are these. A dispute 
was referred by the Central Govemmrnt under s. 10 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) with reference to 
the thirteen workmen involved in this appeal ill.the 
following terms :-
''Whether 
the dismissal ·of the !ollowing 
thirteen workmen of Bhat.dee Colliery 1wa 
I S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
7ll 
justified 7 If not, to what relief are they entit· 
led and from which date ?" .. 
It appears that the thirteen workmen had physi-
cally obstructed the surface trainmers working in the 
colliery on different dates, namely, October, 20, 
·October 27, and November· 3, 1959. Some of 
them had also incited the other workmen to join in 
this act of obstructing the loyal and willing trammen 
so that they may be prevented from working. This 
happened during a strike which was .begun on 
October 20, 1959 by the Colliery Mazdoor Sangh 
ti:> which the thirteen workmen in question belonged. 
In consequence the appe lant served charge·sheets on 
the thirteen workmen on November 9, 1959 charging 
that "they physically obstructed the surface trammers 
on duty at No. 1 and 2 Inclines from performing 
their duties· and controllirig . the movemc;nt of the 
tubs by sitting in-between tram.line track and 

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