LexNATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LID. versus HANUMAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LID. A v. HANUMAN J"/y 25, 1967 [K. N. WANCHOO, C.J. ANO G. K. MITTER, JJ.] B Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), as. 33 and 33A-Stand- ing Orders providing for automatic termination of seroices far over-staying leave beyond certain period-S. 33 whether applies when services terminated in above manner-Application under s. 33A, whether lies. Constitution of India, Art, 136--Appea! by special leave against order of Labour Court-Supreme Court will interfere with finding C of fact by quasi-judicial Tribunal only when they are perverse. The respondent was a workman in the appellant company. On the ground of over-staying his leave for more than eight daya the company, relying on the relevant provision in the Standing Orders, treated his services as having teen automatically terminated. The workman made an application under s. 33A of the Industrial Dis- putes Act before the Labour Court. The respondent's version that he had asked for extension of leave on medical grounds and had D sent an application through another workman was believed by the Labour Court. That court therefore held that there was no automa- tic termination of the respondent's services ·and that he was en- titled to make an application under s. 33A. The company appealed to this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. HELD: (i) Ordinarily this Court is slow to interfere with find- ings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial Tribunals in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. l:lut this Court does so if it is shown, B ex facie, that the finding recorded is perverse. In the present case the respondent had been totally unaole by evidence produced by him to establish that his absence beyond the period of leave origi- nally granted was due to continued illness and therefore the finding of the Laoour Court in his favour in this respect .was perverse. [56D-E; 57C] (ii) Standing Order (i) in Section G on which the appellant p company relied in inartistically worded, but when the standing order provides that a w<Jrkman will lose his lien on his appointment in case he does not join his duty within eight days of the expiry of his leave, it obviously means that his services are automatically terminated on the happening of the contingency. [57G] Where a workman's service terminates automatically under the· standing order •· 33 would not apply and so an application under s. 33A would not be maintainatle, as there is no question in such a G case of the contravention of s. 33 of the Act. [58C-DJ Chand.ri Bai Uma v, The Elephant Oil Mills Ltd., [1951) 1 L.L.J. 370 and Saha;an v. A. Firpo Company Ltd., [1953] II L.L.J. 686, approved. Raglmnath Enamels Ltd., v. Sri Sttrendra Singh, (1953] I L.L.J. 261, disapproved. Yeshwant Sitaram Rane v. Goodlass Wall Limited, [1954] I B L.L.~505 and Kanaksing Ramsing v. Narmada Volley Chemical Industries Limited, [1956] I L.L.J. Z/7, distinguished. Buckingham and Carnatic Company Limited, v. Venkata1ma and Anr. [19631 II L.L.J. 638=f1964'1 4 S.C.R. 265, applied. I I I ENGJNEERINfl INDUSTRIES "· HANUMAN (W1mchoo, c. J.) 55 A 0VJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Ne,. 549 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the Award dated December 23, 1966 of the Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur in Complaint No. 6 of 1965. B Niren De. Addi. Solicitor-General, and B. P. Mal1eshwari, c for the appellant. M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu, R. Nagaramam and Vineet Kumar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wandloo, C.J~ This is an appeal by special leave in an in- dustrial matter and arises in the following circumstances. Res- pondent Hanuman was in the service of the appellant. He took leave from 3rd to 9th April, 1965 and in that connection a certi- ficate from the Employees" State Insurance Dispensary (herein- after referred to as the Dispensary) was produced. He should D have joined on 10th April, 1965. but he did not do so. His case was that he had senl another certificate from the Dispensary on April 10, 1965 for further leave through one Prahlad Singh. Thereafter he was given a fitness certificate on April 19, 1965 and was required to join on 20th April, 1965. He appeared to report for duty on 20th April, 1965, but he was not allowed to join on ll the ground that his service stood termiilated. As an industrial matter was pending at the time in which he was concerned as a workman, he made an applic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.