LexROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD. versus BRIJNANDAN PANDEY.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1956 Octobe1' 11. 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD. v. BRIJNANDAN PANDEY. [1956] [BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, s. K. DAS and GOYINDA MENON JJ.] Industrial Disp,,te-Temporary employees-Discharge of work· men-Application before the Labour Appellate Tribunal-Scope of enquiry-Discretion of the Tribunal-Ind•<Strial Disp,.tes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (XL VIII of 1950), s. 22. The scope of an enquiry under s. 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, is whether there is a prima facie case made out for the proposed discharge of the workman and the employer has not resorted to any unfair practice or victimisation. Though an Industrial Tribunal can create new obligations or modify contracts in the interests of industrial peace or to prevent unfair practice or victimisation, its discretion bas to be exercised in accordance with well recognised principles and it cannot ignore altogether an existing agreement or existing obligations. The AutomobileProditets of India Ltd. v. R"kmaji Bala ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 1241) and Atherton West it Co. Ltd. v. Suti Mill Mazdoor Union, ([1953] S.C.R. 780), relied on. Where, as in the present case, the Labour Appellate Tribunal did not direct its mind to the real question to be decided on an ap· plication under s. 22 of the Act for permission to discharge the temporary employees and witbout deciding ·whether the workmen were temporary employees or not, passed an order dismissing the application on the basis of a finding which was not determinative of the real point or question at issue, held that the decision must be set aside and the proper order passed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1955. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 25, 1953, of the Labour Ap- pellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta in Miscellaneous Case No. C-112 of 1953. G. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, A. B. N. Sinha and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appel- lant. S. P. Sinha, R. Patnaik and A. D. Mathur, for tl:~e respondents. .. - - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 801 1956. October 11. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. K. DAS J.-This is an appeal by special leave from a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, dated the 25th September, 1953. The relevant facts lie within a narrow compass. On the 4th of May 1953 the appellant, the Rohtas Industries Limited, Dalrnianagar, made an application to the said Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 22 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 (XLVIII of 1950), hereinafter referred to as the Act, for permission to discharge ninety six temporary employees in the following circumstances. The ap- pellant company have a number of factories at Dal- mianagar including a cement factory, power house, pulp mill, paper factory, chemical factory, factory for the manufacture of certain acids and an asbestos cement factory. The company had a number of temporary employees who were engaged temporarily in connection with certain erection works for the ex- tension and enlargement of those factories. The terms of employment of these employees were em- bodied in a temporary appointment form which was signed by the employees as well as the management. The said terms stated, inter alia, that "the company could discharge the employee at any· time without notice, compensation and giving any reason therefor, whether on completion of the work on which the em- ployee was engaged or earlier"; the terms also made it clear that whether the employee was on the same job or some other job, in the same department or some other, either on temporary work or permanent work, he would remain a temporary employee until the Works Manager issued a written letter expressly making him a permanent employee. As and when the various erection works were completed, the tempo- rary employees were first put on a list of spare men and then discharged. Some time prior to the 3rd of July 1952, sixty nine of these temporary employees were spared for being discharged. The names of these sixty nine employees were given in two lists, Appendix 1956 Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Brijnanda11 Pandey 802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956] 1956 A and Appendix B. It was alleged that on the 3rd ot July 1952,a number of these employees headed by one Rohtas Industries Brij Nandan Pandey entered the office of Shri L. C. Ltd. v. Jain,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.