LexTHE CALCUTTA JUTE MFG. WORKERS UNION versus CALCUTTA JUTE MFG. WORKERS UNION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 483 In the result this appeal is allowed. The orders of the Courts below remitting the award are set aside. The appellant 'vill get the cost through- out. Nothing that we have said in this judgment will aff3ct the right of the parties to take such steps, if any are available to them at law, for cur· ing the defect arising from the award being on an unstamped paper. Appeal allowed. THE CALCUTTA JUTE MFG. CO. LTD. v. CALCUTTA JUTE MFG. WORKERS' UNION (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispnte-Oharge of defiance and insubordination- Authority if m1Mt be a direct superior-Enquiry-Incidental matter if could be considered-Standing Order 14 (c) (i). J, a sardar of the Batching Department of the appellant company, brought to the notice of G, a supervisor of the depart- ment, that one R of the Spinning Department was throwing away as unusable some workable roves. G on finding the report correct, with a view to make a complaint against R's work to the superior authority asked J to collect the roves thrown away. R tried to prevent J from collecting the roves; on G intervening R took a menacing attitude and abused G in filthy language. .Soon another sardar S took R's side and also abused G and threatened him with violence. The mana- gement of the appellant company on the complaint of G served charge·sheets on the 2 workmen R and S which stated that as they had used abusive and filthy language and threa· tened to assault G, a supervisor, they were guilty of misconduct under standing order No. 14 \c) (i) which contemplated two types of misconduct; one wilfu insubordination and the other disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. The tribunal inter alia held that G not being the super- visor of the Spinning Department where R and S worked was not a direct superior of these workmen and they were not guilty of insubordination or disobedience within the Standing Order. 1961 Rikhabdas v. Bal/ahhdas Sarkar J. 1961 Nou1111bt1 16, J961 7 J,. C.kuJI • Jui, Alfi· Co. LJd. •• Ca/'111JD JuJt Jlfg. Work,,s' Union Sltfkat J. 484 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. HUil that defiance of pcrsom in authority whether such persons w~re the direct superiors of the workmen charged or not and also riotous conduct which made it impo55ible for the higher officers to discharge their duties proprrly, amount to insubordination. Held, futher, that an order of dismissal may be rightly sus· taincd if it is ba.ed on a finding on a charge which the work- men concerned had the opponunity of meeting even though in the course of the enquiry other incidental matters had crept in. N. Kalindi v. M/•. Tata Looomotfre & Bngineering Co. Ltd. (1960) 2 L.L.J. 228, referred to. CIVIL Al'PEJ,LATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the award dated January 7, 1960, of the Second Labour Court, \Vest Bengal Calcutta, in case No. VIII-C/157 of 1958. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. M. K. Ramamurthi, D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg and S. C. AgaNCal, for the respondent. 1961. November 16. The Judgment of tho Court was <le!ivt1red by SARKAR, J.-This is an appeal against the a.ward of an industrial tribunal holding that the dismiBSal of two workmen by tho appellant was unjustified and directing their reinstatement. The appellant has a factory for ma.king yarn out of jute. There were, among others, two d1>part- ments in the factory, namely the Spinning and the Batching departments. The workmen con~erned were Ramdhani and Sita.ram and they were emp- loyed in the Spinning Department. The prelimi· nary stage of the preparation of yarn takes plaoe in the Batching Department which in an unfinished stage is passed on to the Spinning Department for final pror.essing and it is thereafter used for weaving. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 485 The appellant's case is that on March 22, 1958, a Roving Sardar of the Batching Department called Jagabandhu informed Ghosh, who was in charge of that department, that Ramdhani was throwing away as unusable some workable roves (slivers of jute drawn out and slightly twisted) which came from the Batching Department to the Spinning Department. Ghosh thereupon went to the Spin- ning Department and found that the report of the Roving Sardar was correct. He then asked the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.