THE GODAVARI SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus SHRI D. K. WORLIKAR

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 15-03-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

.. -
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE GODAV ARI SUGAR MILLS LTD. 
v. 
SHRI D._K. WORLIKAR 
305 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. W ANCHOO, JJ.) 
Industrial Dispute-N otificai:ion-C onstruction -Head office of 
Sugar Industry, if within its purview-Bombay Industrial Relations 
Act, r946 (Bom. II of r947), s. 2(4)-Notification No. IIJI-46 
of r952. 
· 
The respondent, a stenographer employed by the appellant 
at its head office in Bombay, challenged the legality and pro-
priety of the dismissal order passed against him by an application 
under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 
1946, and contended that the Notification No. n31-46 issued by 
the Government of Bombay in 1952 under s. 2(4) of the said Act 
brought within its purview the head office of the appellant which 
was dealing in Sugar Industry. The appellant challenged the 
competency of the application on the ground that the Act did not 
apply to the respondent's:case and the Labour Court had no juris-
diction as the Notification did not apply to the head office of the 
appellant: 
Held, that on a proper construction of the Notification, it 
ca.:nnot be said that the Government of Bombay intended to 
extend the scope of the Notification to the head office of a Sugar 
Industry. The Notification did not bring within its purview the 
sugar industry as such but the manufacture of sugar and its 
by-products, the object being to confine its benefits to service or 
employment which was connected with the manufacture of sugar 
and its by-products including the growing of sugar canes and all 
agricultural and industrial operations connected with the growing 
of sugarcane. 
. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal 
No. 425 of 1958. 
Appeal by special leave from the :pecision dated 
October 9, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of 
India, Bombay, in Appeal (Bom.) No. 111 of 1956. 
M. C. Setalva<l, Attorney--General of India, S. N. 
Andley, J. B. Da<lachanji, Rameshwar Nath and 
P. L. Vohra, for the appellants. 
M. S. K. Sastri, for the respondent. 
1960. March 15. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
1960 
Godavari Sugar 
Mills Ltd. 
v. 
D.£(. Worlikar 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This appeal by special leave Gajeniragadkar ]. 
raises a short question about the construction of the 
notification No. 1131-46 issued by the Government of 
Bombay on October 4, 1952, under s. 2(4) of the 
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Born. 11 ·of 
1947) (hereinafter called the Act). The respondent, 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
who was a stenographer em ployed by the appellant, 
the Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd., at its head office in 
Godavari Sugar Bombay was dismissed by the appellant on April 22, 
Mills Ltd. 
1955. 
He had been working as .a stenographer for 
v. 
D.K. Wvrtii<ar some years past on a salary of Rs. 135 pins Rs. 27 
as dearness allowance. 
He ""1s charged with having 
Gajrndrngadkor ]. committed acts of disobedience and in"ubordination, 
and after a proper enquiry where he was given an 
opportunity to defend himself, he was found guilty of 
the alleged misconduct; that is why his services were 
terminated ; that is the appellant's case. 
The respondent challenged the legality and pro-
priety of his dismissal by an ttpplication before the 
Labour Court at Bombay; he purported to make this 
application under s. 42(4) read withs. 78 (1) (a) (i) and 
(iii) of the Act. 
The appellant in reply challenged 
the competence of the application on the ground that 
the Act did not apply to the respondent.'s case, and so 
the Labour Court had no jur·isdiction to entertain it .. 
Both the parties 11greed that the question of jurisdic-
tion thus raised by the appellant should be tried as a 
preliminary issue; and so the Labour Court consider-
ed the said objection and upheld it. It held that 
the notification in question on which the respondent 
relied did not apply to the head office of the appellant 
at Bombay ; accordingly the Labour Conrt dismissed 
the respondent's application. The respondent cha.]-
lenged the correctness of this decision by preferring 
an appeal before the Industrial Court.. 
His appeal, 
however, failed since the Ind us trial Co IJl't agreed with 
the Labour Comt in holding th11t t.he notification did 
not apply to the head office of the appellant. The 
matter was then taken by the respondent before the 
Labour Appellate 'I't·ibuual and this time the respon-
dent succeeded, the Labour Appellate Tribunal having 
held that the n

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