LexTHE BAT A SHOE CO. (P) LTD. versus D. N. GANGULY & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1900 Deceniber I 5. 308 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] THE BAT A SHOE CO. (P) LTD. v. D. N. GANGULY & OTHERS (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. W ANCHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Illegal Strike-Managerial enquiry and dismissal of workmen-Settlement without approval of conciliation officer - Competence of Reference - Management's action against employees-Interference by Tribunal, if and when justified-Indus- trial Disputes Act, I947 (I4 of I947), SS. I2, IB. During the course of conciliation proceedings in respect ol a dispute ,between the appellant company and its workmen a settlement ':"as arrived at between the parties on February 18, 1954· Despite the settlement some of the workmen went on strike on February 23, 1954, but eventually it was called off on March 19 and 20, 1954· On the ground that the strike was illegal because it took place during the currency of a settlement, the appellant took steps to serve chargesheets on the workmen who had joined the strike and, after a managerial inquiry, dismissed sixty of them. There were conciliation proceedings in respect of the dismissal of the workmen before the Labour Commissioner and an agreement was arrived at between the appellant and the union on September 2, 1954. The Labour Commissioner was apprised of this settlement, but since it was found that the union was opposing reinstatement of certain workmen, he pro- posed to hold further conciliation proceedings. The appellant was against holding further conciliation steps and, therefore, the Labour Commissioner reported the matter to the Government under s. 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947· A reference ·was accordingly made and the Tribunal gave the award under which all the dismissed workmen were to be reinstated on the ground that they had not been shown to have taken part in violence and there were extenuating circumstances in their case inasmuch as they were misled to join the strike in order to oust the old office bearers of the union so that others might be elected in their place, and that though a much larger number of workmen had taken part in the illegal strike and the union took up the case, only these sixty were eventually dis- missed while the rest were reinstated. The appellant objected to the award on the grounds (1) that as a settlement had been arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings on Sep- tember 2, 1954, which specifically dealt with the case of these sixty workmen, the reference was incompetent in view of s. 18 of that Act, (2) the reference was also incompetent because what was referred was not an industrial dispute but a dispute between the employer and its individual workmen, and (3) the Tribunal's order of reinstatement was in any case unjustified. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 309 Held: (1) under ss. 12 and 18 of the Industrial Disputes 1960 Act, 1947• a settlement which is binding under s. 18 on the ground that it was arrived at in the course of conciliation pro- Bala Sho• ceedings is a settlement arrived at with the assistance and con- Co. (P) Lid. currence of the conciliation officer, and that a settlement which v. is not binding under s. 18 will not be a bar to a reference by the Gangvly Government. In the present case the agreement of September 2, 1954. did not have the approval of the conciliation officer and, conse- quently, the reference based on the report of the conciliation officer under s. 12 of the Act was competent. (2) that the reference was not bad on the ground that an individual dispute had been referred to the Tribunal for adjudi- cation, because the dispute in the present case was originally sponsored by the union and related to the dismissal of a much larger number of workmen. (3) that where the finding of the Tribunal was that there was misconduct which merited dismissal under the Standing Orders and that the managerial inquiry was proper, the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the action of the manage- ment unless it found unreasonable discrimination in the matter of taking back employees, or unfair labour practice or victimisa- tion against the employees. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and Another v. Their Workmen, [1958] S.C.R. 667, followed. I. G. N. and Railway Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 1, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 32 and 33 of 1960. Appeals by special leave from the Award dated February 24, 1959, o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.