MANAGEMENT OF MURGUGAN MILLS L1D. versus INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MADRAS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 148 · Decided: 11-11-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

148 
MANAGEMENT OF MURGUGAN MILLS L1D. 
A 
v. 
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MADRAS AND ANOTHER 
November 11, 1964 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. w ANCHOO AND 
B' 
HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.J 
Industrial Disputes Act (14 Qf 1947), s. 33(2)(b), provis~lf applic-
able to s. 33(2) (a)-Jurisdiction of Tribunal to entertain application under 
8. 33-A. 
During the pendency of an industrial· dispute between the appellant 
and its workmen, the services of the respondent, who was an employee, 
C 
were terminated without giving any reasons. 
He filed a petition before 
the Industrial Tribunal, under s. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
1947, complaining that the approval of. the Tribunal for termmatiog his 
services as required by the proviso to s. 33(2)(b) was not obtained. The 
appellant justified the. termination by contending that cl. 17(a) of the 
Slanding Orders enabled the management to terminate the services of an 
employee by fourteen days' notice, that though the respondent was deli-
berately going slow in his work the termination was not for misconduct, 
D 
and that therefore s. 33(2) (b) and its proviso did not apply. The Tribunal 
held, that as the termination was under cl. 17 (a) of the Standing Orderw, 
s. 33(2) (a) applied. 
The Tribunal however held that the proviso 
applied to s. 33(2) (a) also, and that, since the approval of the Tribunal 
was not obtained, . the application under s. 33-A was maintainable. The 
Tribunal then considered the evidence adduced on merits, held that the 
allegation that the respondent had been deliberately going slow was not 
made out, and ordered the reinstatement of the respondent The appe. 
E 
Dant filed a writ petition in the High Court, which held, that the proviso 
applies only to cl. (b) and not to cl. (a), that action was taken against 
the respondent by way of punishment and therefore was covered by cl. (b) 
to which the proviso applies, and that therefore the Tribunal had juris-
diction to entertain the application and pass order on merits. 
In appeal 
to the Supreme Court, it was contended that since the Tribunal took the 
\iew that the case was covered by s. 33(2) (a), it had no jurisdiction to 
entertain the application because, the proviso is not applicable to that 
F 
sub-section. 
HELD : Even though the Tribunal was in error in holding that the 
proviso applied tn s. 33(2)(a), there was no reason to interfere with 
its order. 
The contention of the respondent was that there was a coo~ 
travention of cl. (b) and its proviso and that oontention gave jurisdic-
tion to the Tribunal in the absence of a domestic enquiry to consider . 
the evidence and find that the respondent was not guilty of dereliction of 
G 
duty, and to order reinstatement. 
(153 A-CJ 
The form used for terminating the services is not conclusive and the 
. Tribunal has jurisdiction to enquire into the reasons which· led to the 
termination. 
[152 Bl 
Chartered Bank v. Chartered Bank Employees Union, [1960]3 S.C.ll. 
441 and Mana!lement of U. B. Dutt & Co. 'I. Workmen of U. B. Dutt & Co. 
[1%2] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 822, followed 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.-Civil Appeal No. 1036 of 
1963. 
.. 
A 
MURGUGAN MILLS v. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (Wanchoo, I.) 14t 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 8, 1960 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 
146 of 1960 . 
..4. V. Viswanatha Sastri and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appel-
lant 
B 
M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan, for respondent No. 2 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the 
judgment of the Madras High Court. The appellant is a textile 
c mill. Rangarathinam Pillai respondent was employed as an 
accountant in the mill for over 13 years by he appellant. 
On 
September 11, 1958, the appellant served a notice on the respon-
dent under cl. 17 (a) of the Standing Orders terminating his ser-
vices on and from September 24. 1958. 
No 
reasons 
were 
given 
in 
the 
order 
terminating 
the 
service. 
D The respondent protested against his dismissal and said 
that he had a blameless record and had not done anything 
meriting the termination of his services. 
He added that no show-
cause notice had been served upon hinI, no explanation was asked 
for and no enquiry whatsoever had been held before the order was 
issued. 
He further alleged that he had been victimised for his 
E trade union activities as he was a member of the Executive of the 
Coimbatore District Textile Mill St

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