LexM/S. BHARAT SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus SHRI JAI SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961 S t/ftf'flbtr 20, • 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) ~1/S. BHARAT SGGAR MILLS LTD. ,_ .. SHRI JAI SIKGH AN"D OTHERS (K. K. WA:sc1100 and K. C. DAS GuPl'A,JJ.) ln·lu.ili'1.1.1l Dispute- "Go s/.0111" by toorkmen-AppliM-tion for 1u:.1·111ission lo dio1nia~-/Jomestic enquiry not prop;;r-1/ T1£bu11rt! c11n tal..·t inde71e11dt:nt ei:idence for jindiny prima Jacie. CURe-J[ ala fideB and t:ir.liuiisat-ion-De.lay in ma/ring applica- tion-rJJec! of-lndustrial Lis pule" Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947). s. 33. <~< rtai11 workmen of the appellant re~ortc<l to "go slo\•1". The appellant held a domestic enquiry and as a result thereof decided to dismi:is 21 \vork1nen. After considerable delay it made a11 application under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, l 9-17, for permission to disn1iss these workmen. l~vidcnce was led l>efore the Tribunal to prove the charge against the v•orkmen, 'fhe 'J'ribunal held that the don1estic enquiry was not proper, that the appellant \Vas .<.\uilty of 1nala fide conduct and victimisaiion, that, except in the ca!.<: of one \vorkmcn, the others were not guilty of any <lcliiJert\tc go slo\v and accordingly granted permission in respect of the one workman ul'Jne. Ti1e appellant contended that the finding that the remaining 20 \vorkmcn \\·ere not guilty of deliberate go slow l':as pcr,·erse and that the finding in respect o!· ma/a fide& and victimisation was arbitrary and erroneous. ·rhe \vorkmen contended that once the domestic enquiry \Vas found to be improper the Tribunal had to dismiss the application and it could not take independent evidence and arrive at a finding of its O\vn as to the guilt of the workn1cn. lletd, that in an application under s. ~3 of the Industrial Disputes :\ct, 1947, when there has hecn no domestic enquiry or v.•hcn the domestic enquiry has not been properly conducted it is the duty of the Tribunal to take evidence of both side• and to decide whether the alleged misconduct has been made out. The evidence produced before the Tribunal clearly cstablisht"d that 13 out of the 20 workmen were g1dlty of deliberate go slow. Go slo\'' v.;as a p~rnicious and dishonest practice ,,·hich was a misconduct puni'lhable with dismissal under the standing orders. Actual participation in go slow v.;as serious misconduct and the management could not rea:;onably be accused of mala fide" or revengefulness if it proposed punishment of dhmisc;al for such conduct. There was delay in holding the domestic enquiry. and the manage· ment sho,,·ed lamentable callousness in this matter. In cases of chi1 nature the enquiry should be held a~ early as possible, specially when the lvorkmcn are put under suspension. Again, there was delay in making the application for prrmisaion to -.. - ... -- - ~ ---- S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 68'11 dismiss. But these de la vs did not show that the managenu:n t was guilty ofmala fides 'or ~fan inten.tion t~··~ict!mise. The order of the Tribunal refusing permsss10n to d1sm1ss 13 of the workmen was entirely "vrong and unjust and could not be allowed to stand. Sa•a Musa Sugar Works v. Shobrati Khan, [19591 Supp· 2 S. C. R. 836, Shri Ram Swarath Sinha v. Bdsund Sugar Co_., Ltd. 1959 L. A. C. 697 and Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. its workmen, [1960 I S. C: R. 806, referred to .. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 252 of 1960. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated March 6, 1958, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna in Misc. Case No. l of 1959. A. B. N. Sinha, K. K. Sinha and G. N. Dikshit, for the appellants. T. R. Bhasin, for the respondents. 1961. September 20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAs GUPTA J.-The appellant, a Sugar Mill Company, made on December 31, 1956 an applica- tion under s. 33 of th~ Industrial Disputes Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna for the dismissal of 21 workmen for misconduct in connec- tion with "go slow" allPged to have been resorted to by the workmen of the factory from the midnight of February 12, to tho February 18, 1955. The Tribunal held that actual participation in a "go slow" had been establiHhed only against one of the workmen at the Donga Pnd and that the "go . slow" at the btor ~tages in which the other 20 workmen had been engaged occurred as a necessary consequence of this go slow by one workman at the Donga end and was not a deliberate "go slow" by theDL The Tribunal was of opinion also
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.