STRAWBOARD MANUFACTURING CO. versus GOBIND

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 06-03-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

J962 
}r! arch 6· 
618 SUPRE!IIE COURT REPORTS [Hl62] SUPP. 
STRAWBOARD MANUFACTURING CO. 
v. 
GO BIND 
(P. B. GAJElWRAGADKAR, A. K. SAHKaR, and 
K. N. \VANCHOO, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-Autliority of emplovcr 
to 
dismiss 
employee before appro1:a./ of Tribunal-Rule of 111-lerpr(;fation of 
stalute-['niteil Provinc<S lndu.•lrial Di"putrs Act, J!i47, (L'. P. 
28 ~{ J.?47), s.6-E(2)(b)-lndustrial1Xspufos Act, J.'t.Ji), r 14 o' 
lfl47), as amended by Act 36 of J!J!jlj, s. 33(2)(b). 
' 
· 
1,he respondent \vas in the r.mplo)ment rif the appellant 
company. 
I-le refused to comply \\'ith orders gh·cn to hin1 by 
various officers of the appellant con1pany from 1iJnc to time. 
He ,,·as suspended and charg·r.-shee1ed. 
An c1~quiry \Vas heJd. 
After the enquiry, thr appellant referrer! thr matter .for the 
decision of the Labour Comrnissioncr \\'ithCJlil giving a11y prior 
decision of its ov.111. 
!·Iowever, the Labour Con1missioncr 
refused to pas; any order and dire.cted the appellant to takr. 
such action as it thought fit. 
~rhcrcupon, the appellant 
<lismh:sc<l the appellant. 
.i\s 
t\\'O di ... putcs \\Tre 
pending 
bet\\o·cen the appellant and its \\'orkmen at .'\llahahad and 
Meerut, the appellant sent applications by post on the sarne 
day to the tv.·o authorities for appro\•al of the ar.tion ra.ken. 
The Tribunal at Allahabad approvrd of the action Lut the 
Labour Court at Meerut refused to approv•: tl.1· <amc. 
How-
ever the Labour Court held that the appellant 
\\";-t!i not moti· 
vated by victimisation and a prima fncic rasc had hc:cn 111adc 
out for the dismissal of the respondent. 
Thr. appro\'al was 
refused on the ground that the application for appro\·al ha<l 
bcr.n made after the dismissal of the rcsponrle11t and the same 
should have been made before dismissing hin:. 
field, that the employer ran disl'hargc or dismiss the 
employee hr.fore obtaining the approval of 'I'ribunal or the 
I .. abour Court concerned. The u~c of tl:e \\·ord ''approval" 
suggests that something has been <lone hy tlic en1ploycr "·ho 
seeks approval of. the same fro1n 
the 'I'ribunal. 
If the 
intention had bce.n that the etnploycr could not pa~s the 
order of dismissal or discharge "·ithout first obtaining the 
approval, the language usec.l "·otild have bcc11 diffcrer11.. 'fhe 
legislature intended that the cn1ployer \\·ould ha\'e the right to 
pass an order of <lischar~e or dismbsal 
... ubject 
to 
tv.•o 
conditions, namely, pavment of wages for one n1onth an<l 
making of an applicaiion to the authority concerned for 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
619 
approval of the action taken. If the Tribunal does not 
approve of the action taken by the employer, the result would 
be that the action taken by him would fall and the workmen 
would be deemed never to have been dismissed or discharged 
and would continue to be in the service of the employer. 
The dismissal or discharge of an employee, payment of 
wages and the making of an application for approval should 
be simultaneous and part of the same transaction. 
When an 
employer dimisses or discharges 
an employee. he should 
immediately pay him or offer to pay him wages for one month 
and also make an application to the Tribunal for approval at 
the same time. Although all this cannot be done literally• 
simultaneously, the conduct of the employer should show that 
the three things were done as a part of the same transaction. 
Metal Press Works Ltd. v. Deb (H. R.) and Others, (1962) 
L. L. j. 7 5, approved. 
. 
The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Ramchandra Bhimayya, 
J.L.R.'(1950) Born. 289 and Indian Extractions Private Ltd. v. 
A. V. Vyas, Conciliation Officer, 
A. I. R. 
1961 
Guj. 
22, 
disapproved. 
' 
It is agatnst the rules of interpretation to add words to 
a provision, \Vhen the provision, as it stands, is capable of a 
reasonable n1eaning which will give effect to 
the intention 
of the legislature even on the words a-; they stand. 
CrvIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 387 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from t,he judgment 
and order dated April 29, 1960, of the Labour 
Court, Meerut in case No. 1 of 1960. 
B. 0. Misra, for the appellant. 
Ranganadham Ohetty, A. V. Rangam, 
A. 
Vedavalli and P. 0. Agarwala, for the respondent. 
1962. March. 6. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
WANCHOO, .J.- This appeal by special leave 
raises th~ question. of interpreta:tion of s. 6-E (2l(h) 
of the Umted Provmces Industrial Disputes Act, U.P. 
Act No, XXVIII of 

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