MANAGEMENT OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD. versus SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 1090 · Decided: 13-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 1090 
MANAGEMENT OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD. 
v. 
SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION 
(Civil Appeal No. 11016 of 2013) 
DECEMBER 13, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Labour Li::lvv - Misconduct - Punishment - Proportionality 
- Appellant-Company engaged in manufacture of rubber 
C products - Issuance of fresh instructions by management of 
appellant-Company requiring the workmen (working as 
moulders to operate the rubber moulding machines) to place 
the bag of their production on the electronic weighing scale 
instead of placing them on the floor at the end of the shift as 
D they were doing till that time - The workmen considered this 
responsibility to be involving not only additional work in 
carrying the production bag to the weighing machine but also 
in devoting additional time beyond the shift hours without any 
additional remuneration for the same and refused to carry out 
E the fresh instructions - Held: Refusal of the workmen to carry 
out the fresh instructions issued by the management was not 
without a lawful or reasonable justification and could not at any 
rate be described as contumacious -
Inasmuch as the 
workmen concerned had declined to undertake this additional 
F responsibility which was not only consuming additional time 
but also additional effort they could not be accused of either 
deliberate defiance or misconduct that could be punished -
. 
Tribunal was in that view wrong in holding that the charge 
framed against the respondents was proved - Refusal to carry 
out the instructions requiring workmen to do additional work 
G beyond the shift hours clearly tantamounted to changing the 
conditions of service of the workmen which was impermissible 
without complying with the requirements of s. 9-A of the 
Industrial Disputes Act - Even assuming that the finding 
H 
1090 
MGMT. OF SUNDARAM INDUSTRIES LTD v. SUNDARAM 1091 
INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION 
regarding the .commission of misconduct is left undisturbed, 
A 
the circumstances in which the workmen were alleged to have 
disobeyed the instructions issued to them did not justify the 
extreme penalty of their dismissal - At any rate, the Labour 
Court having exercised its discretion in setting aside the 
dismissal order on the ground that the same was 
B 
. disproportionate, the High Court was justified in refusing to 
interfere with that order under Article 226 of the Constitution 
""'."·In any event, no compelling reason to invoke extraordinary 
power under Article 136 of the Constitution or to interfere with 
the orders passed by the two Courts below - lndustr.ial c 
Disputes Act, 1947 - s.9A - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 136 and 226. 
Labour Law - Misconduct - Punishment - Proportionality 
- Held: Whether or not the punishment is disproportionate 
more often than not depends upon the circumstances in which 
D 
the alleged misconduct was committed, as also the nature of 
the misconduct 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or.XU, r. 22 - Judgment 
- Held: Ajudgment can be supported by the party in whose 
E 
favour the same has been delivered not only on· the grounds 
found in his favour but also on grounds that may have been 
· held against him by the Court below. 
The appellant-company is 
engaged in 
the 
manufacture of rubber products for various industrial 
applications. 488 of its employees were working as 
moulders to operate the rubber moulding machines. The 
management of. appellant-company required the 
workmen engaged as moulders to place their individual 
bags of production on the weighing scale at the end of G 
their work shift. 13 moulders declined to abide by the said 
instructions, and were thus placed under suspension. 
Aggrieved, the respondent-union raised a dispute before 
.the Labour Officer who advised the union and its 
workmen to tender an apology to the management and 
F 
H 
1092 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 16 S.C.R. 
A an undertaking to the effect that they would not repeat 
their acts in future. 
The appellant's case is that despite the apology and 
undertaking furnished pursuant to the said advice, the 
:B defaulting workmen not only continued ~isobeying the 
instructions but succeeded in enticing three others to 
follow suit, thereby disrupting the work in the factory. The 
appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against them; 
and pending such proceedings the workmen concerned 
were placed under suspension. The inquiry initiated 
C against the workmen culminated i

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