MANAGEMENT OF MONGHYR FACTORY OF ITC LTD., MONGHYR, BIHAR versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT PATNA (BIHAR) , & 3 ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 1044 · Decided: 24-07-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1044 
\· 
l\IANAGEMENT, OF MONGHYR FACTORY OF ITC LTD., 
.A 
' 
. MONGHYR, BIHAR 
. 
B. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
-
V~' 
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT PATNA (BIHAR) 
, 
& 3 ORS. 
. 
. 
iuly 24, 1978 
[N;·r.;_ UNTWALIA, 
0
JASWANT SINGH AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Supreme Court Rules 1966 Order.XV;_Rules 1,. 5,. SA with Articles 131, 132" 
135 of Constitution of lndia~cope· of-Whether the leave of the Supreme Court 
is necessary to urge- in appeal other grounds when certificate granted by a High 
Court is restricted to a particular ground-Considerations required to be looked 
_into by the High· Court -while granting the certificate. 
Industrial Disputes Act, (14 of 1947), 1947, S. 10(1) (c)-Whether a refe-
rence for adjudication of a labour dispute by the Labour Court which is in 
the prescribed proforma without striking off the appropriate words amounts to 
non-application of the mind and th'erefore the reference void. 
Standing Order No. 20 clause (i) and (ii) 0.nd. Stariding order. 2l(A)- as 
certified under s. 5 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, (Act 
20) 1946-Difjerence between "habitual',. and neglect of work" explained-
Relief which should be granted to the workmen whose dismissal has been found 
to be wrongful, mala fide or illegal, -explained. 
A chargesbeet to the effect viz., .. Neglect of work in-that on 21-5-66 -you 
packed approximately 1301\.f~ Embassy packets with Scissors slides whilst operating 
].f/C No. 14 resulting in loss of 200 (two hundred man-hours approximately 
. for opening up the packets and changing the slides, and loss of material valued 
at Rs. 126/- approximately." was served upon respondent no. 3 for hfa mis-
conduct which was followed up by a domestic enquiry \\·hich found him guilty. 
Accepting the report his services ·were terminated. 
On the raising of an industrial dispute it was referred for adjudication by the 
Government of Bihar to the Labour Court? Patna, respondent no. 1 by a Noti-
fication dated the 6th/17th February, 1968. The Labour Court noticed "(I) 
from the documents of record it is abundantly clear that the management and 
Sbri Ram Krishan Pathak are not on happy terms for several years" (2) .. the 
service card indicates that the service records of Shri Pathak are not neat and 
clean". In view of its finding that the order of discharge was mata fide and 
unreasonable in tbe sense that the workman was guilty of the charge of fault 
only and not of misconduct the Labour Court made an award on November 23, 
1970 ordering reinstatement of Respondent No. 3 with all his back wages from· 
the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. The Appellant challenged 
the award by filing a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed on 
July 23, 1973. At the instance of the l\.fanagement a certificate of fitness was 
granted by the High Court on February 22, 1974. In the order granting the 
certificate, the High Court mentioned that out of three points urged by the 
appellant only one point justified the ground of certificate as that point involved 
a substantial question of law of general importance needing the decision by the 
Supreme Court. 
Pursuant to the grant of the certificate, a petition of appeal 
was filed in this Courty foilowed in the usual course by a statement of the case. 
Various other points which have been argued on behalf of the management 
before the labour court as also in the High Court were taken in the petition 
of appeal and the statement of the case. 
However no separate petition was 
lodged by the appellant along with the petition of appeal in accordance with 
Rule 5 of Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules 1966. The appellant restricted 
his arguments only to the three following points out of the several argued -
before the High Court, viz. (a) That the reference is invalid on the very face of 
it,. that it was mechanically made by the Government without the application of 
mind. (b) T,bat the workman was guilty of misconduct within the meaning of 
( 
) 
• 
• 
\ 
·- .. ~·-;--; '.,..--:-. · ... 
~· 
I.T.C. LTD •• I'. PATNA LABOUR COURT 
1945 
clause (ii) of Standing Order 20 applicable to the appellant and both the Courts 
below have committed errors of law on the face of the record in taking a 
contrary. view. 
(c) That in any view of the matter on the facts and in the 
circumstances of the case it was not expedient, fit or proper to order reinstatement 
of the concerned workman and in lieu thereof only compensation should

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