THE DUNLOP RUBBER CO. versus WORKMEN

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 10-11-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
I' 
G 
THE DUNLOP RUBBER CO. 
v. 
WORKMEN 
November 10, 1964 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO AND 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.] 
139 
Domestic enquiry-Dismissal of workmen for 'go slow'-Charge not 
expressly mentioning go slow but referring to Standing Order dealing inter 
alia with 'go s/ow'-Enquiry officer turning down workmen's request uJ 
repre8'ntalion through a member of unrecognised union-Enquiry whetlwr 
vitiated. 
The appellant company dismissed some workmen after a domestic 
enquiry holding them guilty on a charge of 'go slow' action. The ..... 
pondents raised an indwitrial dispute. 
The Industrial Tribunal foun<' 
that the dismissal of the respondents could not be sustained "" there ~'· 
no specific mention of 'go slow' in the charge. 
Further it found that 
there was denial of natural justice at the enquiry as the workmen were 
not allowed to be represented by a person of their choice. The Tribunal 
set aside the dismissal of the respondents and ordered their reinstatement. 
The company appeale<l to the Supreme Court by special leave. 
HELD : (i) The charge specified els, lO(vii) and (xvi) of the Opera-
tors Standing Orders. These clauses deal with insubordination and, inter 
alia, with 'go slow'. The workmen had been expressly warned by notice 
that they were "going slow" and in their reply to the charge they denied 
that they were going slow. 
The Tribunal was thus wrong in holdin& 
that the workmen were not charged with 'go slow' action and could not 
be found guilty of that charge. 
[143 B.C, G-H] 
(ii) There was no denial of natural justice because the workmen ulled 
to be represented by a member of a union which was not recognised. 
The Standing Orders clearly provided that only a representative of a 
union which is registered under the Trade Union Act and recognised by 
the company can assist. 
There was no right to representation as such 
unless the company by its Standing Order recognised such a right. 
[1 <44 
F-0, H] 
Kalindi & Ors. v. Tata Locomotives & Engineering Co. Ltd. [1960]3 
S.C.R. 407 and Brook Bond India (P) Ltd. v. Subba Raman [1961] II 
L.L.J. 417, relied on. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 464 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated the September 
29, 1962 of the Third Industrial Tribunal in Case No. VIIl-197 
of 1960. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Anand Prakash and D. N. Gupta, 
H for the appellant. 
N. C. Chatterjee, D. L. Sen Gupta and lanardan Sharma, for 
the respondent. 
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1965) 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. 
The Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. was granted on 
January 21, 1963 special leave to appeal against the award of the 
Third Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal dated September 29, 1962. 
A 
By that award the Tribunal set aside the dismissal from service of 
twelve workmen of the Company and ordered their reinstatement B 
with continuity of service but awarded only 25 per cent of the back 
wages etc. during the period they were out of employment treating 
the period as leave. 
This dispute was referred by the Government 
of West Bengal on July 20, 1960 under s. 10 of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 194 7. 
The workmen were dismissed after a domes-
tic enquiry commenced on February 4, 1960 which was carried C 
on exparte because these workmen did not choose to be present. 
The Tribunal held that the enquiry was not proper and some of 
the witnesses were re-examined before the Tribunal whose verdict 
was against the Company and hence this appeal. 
Eleven of these workmen belonged to what is known as tho 
0 
Dual Auto Mill and the twelfth was working on what is described 
as the Baby Mill. These workmen and several others stopped work 
from January 21, 1960 and they were placed under suspension on 
25/27th January. 
Ten other workmen were also dismissed but 
they were taken back on the intercession of the Government of 
Bengal. 
The incident arose in the following circumstances : 
E 
Jn the processing of rubber which is used in the manufacture 
of rubber goods by the Company, a number of departments have to 
work in sequence. 
The Banbury Section prepares a mixture of 
rubber and chemicals and it is passed on to the Dual Auto Mill 
which, after further processing, turns out blocks of rubber called 
"batches". Each batch is of about 1250 lbs. There were at the F 
material time two Dual Auto Mills and they were working in three 
shifts and as each auto miil required the atten

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