ORIENTAL TEXTILE FINISHING MILLS, AMRITSAR versus LABOUR COURT, JULLUNDUR & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 31-08-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

490 
ORIENTAL TEXTILE FINISHING MILLS, AMRITSAR 
v. 
LABOUR COURT, JULLUNDUR & ORS. 
Augus~ 31, 1971 
[G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. 1AGANMOHAN 
-
REDDY, JJ.] 
Industrial Displlfe-Discharge of lVOrk1nen 1vithout do1nestic inquiry-
Misconduct of discharged i.vorkn1en proved before Labour 
Court-Pro~ 
priety of ter1nination of fervices. 
While a reference was pending before the Labour Court the respon-
dent workmen went on strike because some workmen were suspended. 
The Labour Officer as well as the n1anage111cnt 
tried to persuade 
the 
workers to rejoin duty, but the respondents made it a condition of their 
joining duty that the suspended workmen should also be taken back. The 
management thereafter gave the respondents notices on different 
dates 
asking them to join duty by a date specified in the notices and subsequently, 
by another letter. called upon them to justify their absence, failing which, 
the respondents were informed, that their names would be struck off from 
the muster roll. 
Notwithstanding those notices and the willingness 
of 
management to take them back the respondents gave no reply but conti-
nued the strike and they were informed by letters that their names were 
removed from the muster roll. 
No don1estic inquiry however, was held 
into the misconduct of the respondents. 
The Labour Court, to which the dispute was referred directed reinstate-
ment of the respondents. 
In appeal to this Court, on the question whether the termination of 
the employment of the respondents, in the circumstances of the case, with-
out a.n inquiry, ·was justified. 
HELD : 
(1) It is an accepted principle of industrial adjudication that 
workmen can resort to strike in order to press for· their demands without 
snapping the relationship of employer and employee.. Equally, the manage-
a.It have the right to carry on work, in f urtherence of which, they could 
<•!!plOy other workmen and justify their action on merits in any adjudica-
tion of the dispute arising therefrom. [497 C-E] 
(2) Merely because workmen go on strike, even where the strike is 
illegal, it does i:tot justify the management in terminating their services 
without a domestic inquiry. [497 CJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(3) In the case of a domestic inquiry where misconduct is held to be 
G 
proved, the industrial tribunal or labour court can only interfere with that 
order if there is n1ala fide, or want of good faith or there was victimisation 
or unfair labour practice or the management has been guilty of basic 
errors or violation of principles of natural justice or if on the materia1s, the 
finding is completely baseless or perverse. 
If, however, the management 
does not hold an inquiry, or the inquiry is, due to some omission or defi-
ciency, not valid. the management can nonetheless support the order of 
discharge, termination or dismissal when the matter is referred for indus-
H 
trial adjudication by producing satisfactory evidence and 
proving 
mis-
conduct of the concerned workmen. 
The evidence to substantiate 
and 
justify the action taken against the workmen is not as stringent as 
that 
I 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
ORIENTAL TEXTILE V. LABOUR COUR:i; 
491. 
(Jaganmohan Reddy, l.) 
which is required in a court of law, but should be such as would satisfy 
the tribunal that the order of termination was proper. In such a case, 
there is no difference between a reference under s. 10 of the Industrial Dis-
putes Act and a dispute raised under s. 33A of the Act, and no distinction. 
can be made between cases where the domestic inquiry is invalid and those 
where no inquiry has, in fact, been held. That is, the management can 
justify and substantiate its action on evidence 
duly place 
before the 
Tribunal., [498 E-G; 499 E-F; 500 C-D; 501 A-BJ 
. 
( 4) In the present case, there were no Standing Orders applicable to 
the appellant-company. A domestic inquiry should have been held in order 
to entitle the management to dispense with the services of its workmen on.. 
the ground of !Jlisconduct. [498 A-BJ 
(5) But the management had proved before the Labour Court that 
there was persistent and obdurate refusal by the workmen to join duty not-
withstanding the fact that the management had done everything possible 
to persuade them and gave them opportunities to come back to work; and 
that the respond•onts had. without any sufficie.nt cause refused to do. 
The 
strike was iilegal and it was not necessary for the management to prove 
that the respondents 

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