SUR ENAMEL AND STAMPING WORKS (P) LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 07-05-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--
May t. 
IIG SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
SUR ENAMEL AND STAMPING 
WORKS (P) LTD. 
v; 
THEIR WORKMEN 
(P. ll. GAJENDRAGADKA..R, K. N. WANCROO, 
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) 
lndwtricl Di•pute-Dismimil of employ,.-No proper 
.. t•irv bydepartment-Rei1Ml<llement by Industrial Tribunal-
1clidity-"0ontinuow 
"rvice", 
.Meaning 
of-Indu-<trial 
Di•p«tu Act, UU7 (U ej 19/,7), "· 2 (eee), 25B. 
D, a workman in the appellant company, was served with 
a notice on October 23, 1959, in which it was alleged that a 
number of articles had been spoiled due to his faults, and he 
wa1 asked to show cause why the company should not take 
di1clplinary action against him. In the enquiry held against 
him nobody cacept himself was examined to prove the charge. 
He was confronted with the reports of the superior and other 
pcnon1 made behind his back and simply asked why these 
pcnons would be making the reports against him falsely. On 
November II, 1959, an order was made by the management 
dismissinc him from the service of the company "for causing 
wilful in1ubordination or disobedience whether alone or in 
eombination with another or others; for any orders ef the 
.superior of the management". The Indu1trial Tribunal, to 
which the di1pute was referred, was of the view that the rules 
of natural justice had not been followed by the domestic tribu-
nal ; and after examining the evidence adduced before it the 
Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient 
material to hold that D was guilty of insubordination or di•· 
obedience for which the dismi11a·J order purported to have 
been made, or in respect of the alleg'cd damage done to the 
company'• property. The Tribunal accordingly set uide tile 
order of the dismissal and directed D's reinstatement. The 
appcllant challenged the validity of the order of the Tribunal 
on the ground, im.r alia, that it was not open to the Tribunal 
ta go behind the finding arrived at by the domestic tribunal. 
H•ld that if an industrial employee'• services arc ter-
minated after a proper domestic enquiry held in accordance 
with the rula of natural justice aad the conclu1iou reached at 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 617 
the cnqulry are not perverse, the industrial Tribunal is not 
entitled to conoidcr the propriety or the correctness of the said 
conclusions. But, where, as in the present case, there was no 
proper enquiry, the Tribunal was justified in ignoriog the 
findings of the domestic tribunal. 
An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held 
unlcas (i) the employee proceeded against has t>cen informed 
clearly of the chargca levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses 
arc examined--<>rdinarily in the presence of the employee-ill 
respect of the chargca, (iii) the employee i1 given a fair opp-
ortunity tO CrOSs•cxaminc Witncssea, (lY) he is CiVCn a fair 
opportunity to examine witncoscs including himself in his 
defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the 
enquiry officer rrcords his findings with reasons for the 1am1 ia 
his report. 
Two of the workmen in the service of the appellant cem-
pany had been appointed on March 10, 1959, but their scrviCl!I 
were tcrmmatcd on January 15, 1960. A workman who had 
been iR continuous service for not less than one year under an 
employer waa entitled to certain benefits uader " 25F of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and under s. 25B a workman 
who during a period of twelve calendar months had actually 
worked in an indu1try for not less than 240 days ohall be 
deemed to have completed one year of completed service in the 
industry. It wa• found that the two workman had during the 
period of employment for less than 11 calendar months worked 
for more than 240 days. 
He/;J that the two workmen were net entitled to the 
bencfit1 of s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Before a workman can be considered to have completed 
one year of amtinuous service in any industry it must be shown 
first that he was employed for a period of not less than 12 
caleadar months and, next that during those 12 calendar 
months he had worked for not less than 2+0 days. The require· 
mcntl of 1. 25B would not be satisfied by the mere fact of the 
nlllXlbcr of working days being not less than 240 days. 
Cxvrr.. APPELLATEjUR1SD1CTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 681 of 1962. 
· 
. . 
. Appeal by special leave from the award dated 
·:March 13; 1961, of the Fifth Industrial Tribunal 
West Bengal, in Case No. VIII,167of1960, 
·' 
1963 
Svr En

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