LexM/S. KESORAM COTTQN MILLS LTD versus GANGADHAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
"; I 1 I , ·2, S.C.R. SUPRIEME COURT REPORTS 809 ' The conduct of· the E?tcise Inspector in tampering with 'the seizure memo is such as' to affect his ,bona fides and therefore ther~ .is a lot of doubt about _ the .alleged confession .by the appallant being voluntary. I am not .satisfied about the tonfession beihg voluntary and would therefore not use it in Sl\pport of the unsatisfactqry· statements of the prosecution witnesses about !he recovery of the ganja from his possessiop and would not sustain the conviction even though the High Court has.recorded a finding of fact that Ganja. was recovered from the appellant's possession.' The High Court did not ' i::o:osider the tampering of. the seizure memo in ,all its aspects or its .effect on the alleged voluntarines~ ·of the confession and, consequently, on rile case. Appeal allowed. M/s. KESORAM COTTQN MILL~ LTD. v. GANGADHAR AND OTHERS (K. N. WANCHOO and K. C. DAS GU!'TA JJ.) 19_63 -- Ral?J Ram JaiJwal v. Stale of Bihar Roghu6ar DaJal J, 1963 April I Industrial Dispute-Go slow and strike-Agreement- Susp•naion of Workmen pending inquiry-No inquiry held-R•ferenCB to adjudication-If workmen entitled to wqvea for period of, auspension-,/nquiry-Natural Juatioe-No examination-'in-chief of witnessea~Previou. statement i;:ead- -' Oopy of statement not given to workmen-Propriety of procedure. The appellant suspended 1600, workmen as they resorted to go slow at\d illesal strikes. On December 23, 1957, all JJ63 K ugrd11J C1Uan Mi/11.td •• GQn1aJ1tsr ';~. -''4\''*-?l!Wft W. ~ ~' :. 810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. agreement was arrived at between the workers Union and;the management under which the workmen resumed work. Clause 7 of the agreement provided that the suspended workmen shall not be entitled to any wages or compensation for the suspension period. Clause 9 provided that 29 of the work· men shall remain suspended pending inquiry and disciplinary action by the management. The management did not hold any inquiry and had the n1attcr referred for adjudication. With re•pect 10 another 5 workmen the management held an inquiry on various charges and dismissed thern. In the inquiry, the management did not examine their witnesses but had their previous staternents read out, and without giving copies of those statements to the workmen asked them to cross: CJ<amine the witn"5ses. The dispute arising out of the dis· missal of these 5 workmen was also referred to adjudication. With rrspect to the 29 workmen the Triounal permitted the dismissal of 9 and ordcrf'd rcins1atcmcnt of the remaining and awarded 12 mon1hs' wages to the dismissed workmen and 15 months' wages to the reinstated workmen for the period during which they remained suspended. With respect to the 5 workmen dismissed the Tribunal held that the inquiry was not held in accordance with the principle. of natural justice but that the evidence produced before the Trilmnal justified the dismissal of 4 of the workmen. The appellant contended that in vif"\V of c:I. 7 of the agreement none of the 29 workmen were entitled to any compensation or wage. for the period of suspension and that the inquiry with respect to the 5 workmen was in accordance \Vith principles of natural justice. The workmen contended that all the 29 workmen were entitled to full wagC' for the period of suspension.' Held that r.I. 7 of the agreement referred to the period of !U9pension up to the date of the agreement and not to the suspension thc,.aflrr. Ordinarily, the law is that a workman may be suspended pending inquiry and disciplinary action; and if after the inquiry he is dismissed he is not "ntitlcd to any \vag~s for the suspension period, hut if he is reinstated he is entitled to full wages for the period of sus- pension. Clause (9) envisaged suspension pending inquiry and also cnvisage<l the legal consequences. The 1"ribunal was accordingly just ifir.d in awarding ,\·ages for the suspension period subsequent to the date of the agreement. TM Straw Board Mfg. Co. v. Govind, [1962] Supp. 3 S. C. R. 618 referred to. H ,Id further that all the 29 suspended workmen were entitkd to full wages from the date of the agreement up to the 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 811 date of the award, There was no provmon in the standing orders, nor was there any term of service, which entitled the management to suspend a workman witho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.