LexMEENGLAS TEA ESTATE versus ITS WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
165
strictly cumtrued. This Court again in 1'he State of
Uttar Pmde.sh v. Maham.med 8ayeed (1), applied the
strict rule of comtruction of a surety bond in that
case.
In the present case a strict construction
of
the bond leads to the only conclusion
that a
demand of the Court on the judgment· debtor and a
default made by him were necessary conditions for
the enforcement of the bond against the appellant.
In the result, we set aside the order of the High
Court and dismiss
the application for execution
filed by the first
n~spondent against the appellant.
But we do not think that this is fit case for award-
ing costs to the appellant. She has failed to raise
this objection specifically in her objections or to
place before the
learned District Judge the present
con tent ion.
In the circumstances we direct each
party to bear his or her own costs throughout.
MEE:'olGL\S TEA ESTATE
v.
ITS WORKMEN
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATULJ,AH
and J.C. SHAH JJ.)
lnd11strla!
T>iBpufe-Requireme-nts of vrdifl inquiry-
/lri'.ncip/f'.~ nf natuta! jtt~lice-Practice, of Suprerne ('nurt nnt
In Pnfr r irifu fridenre to .find facts for itsefj-(1ase of no f.vid1,nrr.
In Jan:,ary, I ()j6, there was an incident in which a group
of workrnen assaulted the Manager and tv,;o Assistant Managers
of the appellant company.
All the three offi,·ers were wound-
ed. Sornr: w• 1rk1nr.n IA'< re suspended, :ind cbargt'·Sheets wen>:
served on them,
c!'iar~ii,g them with participation in the riot.
After an inquiry the VIOrkmen wert" disrnissed. 'rhe inquiry
was hr.ld liy the M;1nager and one of the 1\ssistant Managers.
During the inquiry, no witness was
~xarnine<l and no stat(' ..
ment marle by any witnt ss was tendered in evidence.
(IJ (1957] S. C.R. 770.
1963
Kam ala nvJi
v.
Takhatmal
S"hba Rao }.
1963
I .bruarY 22,
1913
M1en1l1.r Te.1. Est•t1
v.
Its WBrkmen
llidayatul/ah J.
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
The dispute was first referred to the Labour Court and
then to the Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
The Tribunal
set aside the inquiry held by the appellant company and asked
the company to prove the allegations against each workman
d' nova before it. The company examined five witnesses.
The
Tribunal held that orders for dismissal of 15 workmen were
justified but it ordered the remaining workmen to be reinstated.
The company came to this Court hy special leave.
n,zd, that the view of the Tribunal was correct that the
inquiry made by the company was not in accordance with the
principles of n•tural justice. The inquiry consisted of putting
questions to each workman in turn.
~o witness \Vas examined
in support of the charge before the workman was questioned.
It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to
answer a charge must not only know the accusation Lut also the
testifuony by which the accusation ·is supported. He must be
given a clear chance to hear the evidence in support of the
charge and to put such relevant questions by way of c10'5·exa-
mination as he desires.
He must also be given a chan'::e to
rebut the evidence led against him.
As regards two workmen, this Court held that the Tribu-
n:il was justified in not acceptiug the findings which p1 oceeded
almost on no evidence.
As regards one workman, this Court
held that as the Tribunal had the opportunity of hearing and
seeing the two Assistant Managers, this Court would be slow to
reach a conclusion different from that of the Tribunal. More-
over, in such cases, it is not the practice of this Court to enter
into evidence with a view to finding facts for itself.
CrvrL APPELLATl<>]URISDIOTION: Civil Appeal
No. 359 of 1962.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated
April 3, 1961 of the t:leventh Industrial Tribunal,
West Bengal, in Case No. VIII-303 of 1 !Jt>O.
B. Sen, S. G. JYJazumdar, D. N.
Mulcheijee
for B. N. Ghosh, for the appellant .
. .Janardhrin 8hnrmn, for the respondents.
Hl63. February 22.
The Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
HrnA YATULLAH J.--·By this appeal filed with
the special leave of this Court, by the Meenglas Te<1
,
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
167
-
Estate against its Workmen, the Company seeks to
challenge an award dated April 3, 1961, pronounced
by the Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
The order of reference was made by the Government
of West Bengal as far back as October 29, 1957, in
respect of the dExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.