MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY versus THE B.E.S.T. WORKERS UNION

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 285 · Decided: 12-01-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
285 
A 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
THE B.E.S.T. WORKERS' UNION 
January 12, 1973 
{A. ALAGIRISWAMI, I. D. DuA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, s. 78(l)(d) (i)-Scope of. 
The appellant, the Mu:nicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, csta· 
blisbed the Jlombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking for the 
purpose of providing and operating motor transport and supplying elec· 
tricity to the consumers in the city of Bombay. 
Workman Shri Naik, empk>yed as Assistant Fitter in the Transporta· 
tio.n Engineering Department at the Appellant's Workshop and another 
employee employed under the Appellant as a mechanic were found by 
the S. I. of Police with gunny bags in their hands 
and 
each bag 
contained 22 brass bearings. On investigation it was found that Naik 
was an employee u:nder the Appellant and that the brass beatings had 
been removed from the Appellant's Workshops with the help and C-O· 
operation of the mechanic. 
A complaint of theft 
against 
the 
two 
workmen was launched. 
An inquiry was held by an officer of the appellant and after evidence 
by the police officers and others, the Enquiry Officer found Shri Naik 
guilty and an ·order of dismissal was passed on February 
11, 
1970. 
ApPeals to the Executive Engineer and Assistant General Manager of 
the appellant were all dismissed. 
Naik and the mcchan.ic thereafter, filed applications before the 5th 
Labour Court at Bombay challenging the order of dismissal on various 
grounds. The Labour Court, after CCl!Sidering all the facts and evidence 
held that as the orders of dismissal were not passed within ~x months 
of the misconduct coming to the notice of the employer, 
they 
were 
illegal and have to be set aside under s. 78(1)(d)(i) of the Act. The 
Labour Court further ordered the appellant to pay each of the workmen 
his back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of order and 
also in addition to pay compensation of Rs. 1500/-. 
The main point that arose for ca.nsideration was the interpretation 
of the provisions of s. 78(1)(d) of the Act etc. 
Allowing the appeal, 
Held: (i) The word "shall" in s. 78(1) should 
not be 
stricUy 
construed and when the relevant provisions are read 'in the context in 
which they appear, it cannot be doubted that the Labour Court will 
have to consider the circumstances of a particular case and the nature 
of the misconduct and also the nature of con1ravcntion of any provi· 
sions of law or standing order. The fact that s. 78(1) of the 
Act 
has conferred certain powers on the LabQur Court does not mean that 
the Labour Court must necessarily and under all circumstances grant 
the reliefs which it has the power to grant; It is well 
established 
proposition that the power to grant certain reliefs includes the power 
bf refilling the telief. If an employer in a palticular case has passed 
an order of punishment beyond the period of six montha and it it . 
is found that he has ·no satisfactory exp!Ol!Qtion for the delay, 
the 
Labour Court may be justified in straightaway settinv; aside the orders 
286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 3 S,C.R. 
on the ground that thev have been passed beyond the period of six 
months. 
If, on the other hand, as in the present ca~, an employer 
has been vigilant in initiating disciplinary proceed!"gs an.d the Labour 
Court is satisfied about the reasons for the delay in passmg the ordeill 
of punishment, the Labour Court is not justifu:d in setting aside the 
orders solely on the ground that.the period of six months had expired. 
[296B-H; 297A-C, E-Hl 
\ii) Provisions contained in s. 78(1)(d)(i) are not mandatory. but 
only directory. Therefore, the interpretation based 
by 
the 
Labour 
Court on s. 78(1)(d)(i) is erroneous. Accordingly, the 
two 
orders 
granting reliefs to the workmen are set aside. [298D-E; 302B] 
Raipur Co-operative Centrt.J Bcu1k Ltd. am! Anr. v. StaJe Industrial 
Court, llldore & Ors., [1963] I L.L.J. 790, M/is. Chotabhai Jethabhai 
Patel & Co. v. The Industrial Cow~. Nagpur & Ors., 
A.,J.R. 
1972 
S.C. 1268, Jbrah;nz Abbobaker &: Anr. v. Custodian-General of Evacuee 
Property, [1962) S.C.R. 696, State of U.P. 
& 
Drs. 
v. 
Baburam 
Upc.dhya, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 679, Rmrington Rand of India Ltd. v. The 
Workmen, [196&] I S.C.R. 164 and Driscoll v. Church Commissioner 
for England, [1957!] I Q.B. 330, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1774 
& 1775 of 1971. 
A

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