RUSTOM & HORNSBY (I) LTD. versus T. B. KADAM

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 119 · Decided: 24-07-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
I 
.. 
\ 
• \ 
A 
B 
c 
RUSTOM & HORNSBY (I) LTD. 
v. 
T.B.KADAM 
July 24, 1975 
119 
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JI.] 
lndlLftrial Dispute1 Act (14 of 1947), S. 2A-Scope of-Domestic Enquiry 
-Junsdiction of Labour Court in relarjon to,. 
Section 2A of <he Industrial Dispute• Act, 1947, provide. that where any 
employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise termina1es the serv~ 
of an individual workman, any di'Spute or difference between that workman 
and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharges etc., shall 
be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman 
nor ttnion is a party to the dispute. 
The respondent was a watchman in the factory of the appellant. He was 
diamisscd from service on Jan. 7, 1964, after holding a domestic cnquirv with 
respect to an incident on the night of December 15, 1963. In June 1967, the 
dispute regarding the dismissal of the respondent was referred to the Labour 
Court. Directing him to be rein•tated, the Labour Court, held that : 
D 
( 1) The charge against the respondent was vague; 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(2) The suspected dishone•ty of the respondent in connection with the 
appellant's property did not constitute any misconduct either under Standin,c-
Orders of the Company or otherwise; and 
(3) The domestic 'enquiry held was defective because, 
the 
respondent 
produced a police constable as his witness at the time of the enquiry who 
expressed his inability to give evidence without the permission of his s.uperion 
ud the Enquiry Officer took no steps for obtaining the necessary permission. 
The Labour Court- summoned and examined the police constable and took. hil 
evidence into account. 
In api)eal to this Court, it was contended : 
(I) That s. 2A came into force only on December I, 1965, aud ar the 
dismissal took place before that date the reference of the dispute was bad; 
and 
'2) That the findin• of the Enquiry Officer was based upon a fair enquiry 
1.nd the Labour Court should not have interfered with the finding. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court on the second contention. 
HELD: (1) The test for .the validity of a reference under '· 10 is whether 
there WM in existence a dispute on the day the reference was maCl,e. [124B--C] 
Jahiruddin v. Mod•l Mills, Nagpur [1966] I LL.J 430, applied. 
National Productivity Council v. S. N. Kaul [1969] II LL.J 186 and Shru 
Gopa/ Paper Mills Ltd. v. Stat< of Haryana, [1968] I Lab. !.<;:. 1259, approved. 
P. Janardhana Sh<tty v. Union of India [1970] II L.L.J. 738, over-ruled . 
(a) Section 2A provides in effect that what would not be an industrial 
diapute as defined in s. 2(k), a!! interpreted by this Court, woo1d b" rl<>emed 
to be an industrial dispute in certain circumstances. There is. no question of · 
living retrospective effect to that section in mai1dng the refe'"ence 
Whe11 the 
5ection uses the words "discharges, dismisses, retrenches etc." it does not deal 
with the question a'S to when that was done but merely rc,ers to a situation 
or st•te o! affairs. [123B-D] 
120 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 
(b) It is no objection to this to say tha~ such an interpretation would lead 
A 
to ~\ll old dispute being reopened after the lapse of many years. Every reference 
would be made only sometime after the dispute has arisen. 
Even in this case, 
if a Jabour union or a group of workmen had sponsored the case of lhe 
respondent, such a reference after lapse of some time would have been valid. 
All that s. 2A bas done is that by legislative action such a dispute is deemed 
to be an industrial dispute even where it is not sponsored by a labour union 
or a group of workmen. The only consideration in such matters is whether 
there was or apprehended an industrial dispute when the reference was made. 
B 
[123D-124B] 
(2) The charge is not vague, [121H] 
'fl. 
(3) The facts set out show that the charge is one of an &!tempt to steal 
~ 
the appellant's property and if proved, the respondent, being 
a 
watchman, 
deserves dismissal. [121H-122A] 
( 4) When a workman is dismissed as a result of a domestic enquiry the 
C 
only power which the Labour Court has is to consider whether the enquiry was 
proper and if it was so, no further question arises. Findings properly recorded 
at an enquiry fairly conducted are bindine: on parties unless ·t is shown that 
such findings were perverse. 
It was not the duty of the Enquiry Officer tO seek 
.permission of the constabl

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