LexM/S. SASA MUSA SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. versus SHOBRATI KHAN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1959 April zg. 836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959) Supp. M/S. SASA MUSA SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. v. SHOBRATI KHAN AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, P. B.. GAJE,NDRAGADKAR and JC N. vVANcHoo, JJ.) · Industrial Dispi<te-Go-slow-Employer's application for per- m.ission to dismiss worhmen-Tribunal's poie;er-Perverse finding- Grant of permission-Indi<strial Disputes Act, r947 (r4 of r947), s. 33· Pending an adjudication proceeding between the workmen and the Mills, the management of the appellant Mills served notices on thirty-three of its workmen and thereafter suspended them for taking a leading part in a protracted go-slow in contra- vention of the Industrial Disputes Act. For similar reasom,. a few days later, it again served similar notices on fifteen others and suspended them. Thereafter the management made two applications under s. ·33 of the Industrial Disputes Act for per- mission to dismiss the said workmen. The forty-eight workmen in their turn applied under s. 33A of the Act alleging breach of s. 33 by the management in suspending them by way of punish- ment. The Industrial Tribunal found that the suspension was not by way of punishment and that there was a deliberate resort to go-slow by the workmen which was unjustified; it refused the permission with respect to sixteen of the workmen on the ground of want of evidence but granted leave to the management to suspend the rest for seven days, thus disallowing the prayer for dismissal. It also rejected the workmen's application under s. 33A of the Act. Appeals were filed by both the parties and when they came up for hearing, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the workmen to withdraw their appeal so far as it related to their application under s. 33A of the Act, with the result that the finding of the Tribunal that the suspension was not a punish- ment but only pending enquiry by the management and proceed- ings before the Tribunal, stood confirmed. While agreeing with all other findings of the Tribunal, the Appellate Tribunal took the view that the suspension ordered by the management was substantive.punishrnent since the notices did not state that it was pending enquiry, and the subsequent application for per- mission to dismiss the workmen was, therefore, mala fide and dis- missed the appeal of the management. ' Held, that the material findings arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal not having been upset by the Appellate Tribunal, the only possible order on the applications of the management under s. 33 of the Act was to permit it to dismiss the workmen provided there was evidence against them all. It was not open to the Industrial Tribunal to substitute some other form of punishment and give permission therefor. (2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOH.TS 837 The Appellate Tribunal was clearly in error in holding that suspension, in the instant ca.se, was not an interim order pending enquiry and proceedings before the Tribunal under s. 33, b_ut substantive punishment, contrary to the finding of the Industrial Tribunal which stood confirmed by its own order permitting the withdrawal of the appeal against it by the workmen. The finding of the Industrial Tribunal that there was no evidence against sixteen workmen was, on the face of it, per- verse, since the evidence against them was the same as against the thirty-two others. As go-slow was serious misconduct, insidious in nature and could not be countenanced,· and since the workmen were found guilty of snch misconduct, the management must be granted the permission to dismiss them. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 746 and 747 of 1957. Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated June 3, 1955, and May 21, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeal No. Cal. 366/52 and Misc. Case No. 145 of 1955 respectively, arising out of an A ward dated Septem- ber 22, 1952, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, and published in the Bihar State Government Gazette on October 21, 1952. M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and R. 0. Prasad, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. 1959. April 29. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1959 M /s. Sasa Jiusa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan & Others WANCHOO, J.-These are two appeals by the Wanchoo J. management by special leave in an industrial matter arising out of two applications under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter called
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.