LexMCKENZIE & CO. LTD. versus ITS WORKMEN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. r958 agent whereby the latter was enabled to and did - act. as such. The appellant's election was consequ- Dr. Y. S. Parmar ti · · · · ht! d J d 'd en y m our opm10n rig y ec aro vm . sh. m:~ 5;,.gh The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. 1.)aul and Another Sarka, ]. OcJober z7. Appeal dismissed. MCKENZIE & CO. LTD. v. ITS WORKMEN AND OTHERS (JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS and J. L. KAPUR, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Illegal strike-Enquiry by company- Rejection by Tribunal of application for permission to dismiss work- meH-Fresh enquiry, if barred-Notice of enquiry, how to be effected -Dismissal after fresh enquiry-Jurisdiction of Tribunal-If can interfere with decision of company-Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of r947), s. 33· During the pendency of the adjudication of a reference be- fore the Industrial Tribunal, the workmen illegally confined the work-$ manager and went on strike. The company issued notices to the workmen to resume '\'Ork immediately but they refused. The company declared a lock out and served charge sheets on the workmen calling upon them to submit their explanations. No explanation having been submitted the company held an enquiry and found the workmen guilty of gross misconduct amounting to major misdemeanour which merited dismissal. The company applied to the Tribunal under s. 33 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act for permission to dismiss the workmen. The Tribunal granted permission in respect of three workmen but refused it in respect of 6I workmen on the ground that there was reasonable doubt as to their identity and complicity in the incident. The order was upheld in appeal by the Labour Appel- late Tribunal. Thereupon the company took fresh. proceedings against the 64 workmen. It sent charge sheets to them by registered notices to their addresses registered with the com- pany and also affixed notices on its notice boards both inside the premises and outside the gate. The registered notices could not be served upon workmen Nos. 2 to 24 as they were not found at the addresses given. The company wrote to the Workers (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 223 Union•for the addresses of these workmen but received no reply. The company held the enquiry and, as at that time no proceed- ings were pending under the Act, terminated the services of the 64 workmen. The Government made a reference in respect of the termination of services of the workmen. Sixteen workmen resigned and one pleaded guilty. With respect to the rest the Tribunal held that workmen Nos. 2 to 24 had not been properly served and the order of the terminatiop of their services was bad but upheld the order in respect of the remaining workmen. Both parties appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Appel- late Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the company but allowed that of the workmen holding that the testimony of the works manager could not be accepted and apart from that evidence there was no other evidence to show which of the workmen had taken part in wrongfully confining the works manager and in the illegal strike. Held, that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in setting aside the order of termination of service on the ground that it was unable to accept the testimony of the works manager. It was for the management to determine what constituted major misconduct within its standing orders sufficient to merit dismis- sal of a workman but in determining such misconduct it must have facts upon which to base its conclusions, and it must act in good faith, without caprice or discrimination or motive of vindictiveness or intimidation, without resorting to unfair labour practice and in accordance with the accepted rules of natural justice. When the management has so acted its judgment can- not be questioned. -The Appellate Tribunal proceeded as if it were sitting in appeal against the decisions of the managerial enquiry and this was beyond the scope of its powers. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, A. I. R. 1958 S.C. 130; Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup, A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 82 and Hanuman Jute Mills v. Amin Das, A.LR. 1957 S.C. 194, followed. Held, further, that both the Industrial Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal were wrong in holding that proper notices had not been given to workmen Nos. 2 to 24. The standing order merely required that service of notice upon a workman may be made by communicat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.