LexPATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., PATNA versus BALI RAI & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 871 form of the action or the procedure followed; nor do I 1957 think it is relevant to determine what operated in the Parshotam Lal mind of a particular officer. The real hurt does not lie Dlri:.cra in any of those things but in the consequences that The Union of India follow and, in my judgment, the protections of Art. B;;; J. 311 are not against harsh words but against hard blows. It is the effedt of the order alone that matters; and in my judgment, Art. 311 applies whenever any substantial evil follows over and above a purely "contractual one". I do not think the article can be evaded by saying in a set of rules that a particular . consequence is not a punishment or that a particular . kind of action is not intended to operate as a penalty. In my judgment, it does not matter whether the evil consequences are one of the "penalties" prescribed by the rules c;>r not. The real test is, do they in fact ensue as a consequence of th~ order made? I would allow the appeal with costs. BY THE CouRT.-ln accordance with the opm10n -0f the majority, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. PATNA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO., LTD., PATNA. v. BALI RA! & ANOTHER. (BHAGWATJ, B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR and GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Discharge of employee-Permission granted by Industrial Tribunat-Powers of Labour Appellate Tribunal to interfere-Question of law-Appealability- Industria.l Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), s. 33-The In- dustrial Disputes (Appellate) Tribunal Act, 1950 (48 of 1.950) ••• 7. 'J'be appellant made an application before the Industrial Tribunal under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for.permission to dismiss the respondents, its employees, on the ground of misconduct under cl. 17(b) (viii) of the appel- lant's Standing Orders, but subsequently, on a reconsidera- tion of the facts, made another application praytng instead 1957 November S. 19$7 Patna Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Bali Rai 872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Cl!!58l for permiSllion to discharge the respondents vnder cl. 14(a) of the Standing Orders. The Industrial Tribunal found that the second application was bona fide made by the l)ppellant with the honest motive of exercising its right to discharge the respondents instead of visiting upon them the penalty of dismissing them, and granted the appellant permission on payment to the respondents of one month's pay in lieu of notice. .The Labour Appellate Tribunal, on appeal, was .of the opinion that having once alleged misconduct against the respondents the appellant could not be allowed to adopt the expedient of terminating their services by giving notice for the requisite period, by means of a fresh application, and after considering whether the appellant had made out a case under cl. 17(b) (viii) of the Standing Orders, came to the conclusion that the respondents had not been guilty of any misconduct, and held that the Industrial Tribunal erred in granting the permission to discharge the respondents. On appeal to the Supreme Court:- Held, that in an application under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the relevant considerati011 was whether the employer was guilty of any unfair labour practice or victimisation, and unless the Tribunal came to a conclusion adverse to the applicant it would have no jurisdiction to refuse the permission asked for to discharge the employee. Accordingly, in view of the finding of the Industrial Tribu- nal that the application was bona fide, 110 question of law arose out of its order, and the Labour Appellate Tribunal erred in entertaining the appeal CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1954, of the Labour Appel- late Tribunal of India (Calcutta Bench) in Appeal No. Cal-87 of 1953. H. N. Sanya!, Additional Solicitor-Genera! of India, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. And!ey and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants. P. K. Chatterjee, for the respondents. 1957. November 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhagwati J. BHAGWATI J.-This appeal with special leave arises out of an application made by the appellant to the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar under s. 33 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 194 7 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), seeking permission to discharge the res- pondents from its employ. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.