THE LORD KRISHNA TEXTILE MILLS versus ITS WORKMEN

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 12-12-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

r960 
December Ia. 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
THE LORD KRISHNA TEXTILE MILLS 
v. 
ITS WORKMEN 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHoo, JJ.) 
Inauslrial Dispute.-Dismissal of "/Orkmen-Misconducl not 
connected with pending dispute-Application for approval--Juris-
diction of Tribunal-U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, I947 (U. P. 28 
of Ig47), s. 6E-lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I4 of Ig47), s. 33. 
Two officers of the appellant_ were assaulted by the work-
men. In this connection the appellant served notices on eight 
workmen calling upon them to explain their conduct and to 
show cause why they should not be dismissed. In their expla-
nations the workmen denied the charges. Thereupon a proper 
enquiry was held according to the Standing Orders, as a result 
of which the charges were found proved against the workmen 
and the appellant dismissed the workmen and asked them to 
take their final dues together with one month's pay in lieu of 
notice. As a dispute in respect of bonus was pending before the 
Industrial Tribunal, the appellant made applications to it under 
s. 6E(2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, r947, for approval 
of the dismissal of the workmen. The Tribunal refused to 
accord its approval and directed the appellant to reinstate the 
workmen from the date of suspension and to pay full wages for 
the period of unemployment. The appellant contended that the 
Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction and assumed powers of au 
appellate Court over the decision of the appellant. 
Held, that the Tribunal had assumed jurisdiction not vested 
in it by assuming powers of an appellate Court and its refusal to 
accord approval was patently erroneous in law. The require-
ment of obtaining approval under s. 6E(2)(b) of the U. P. Act (or 
s. 33(2) of the Central Act) in cases of dismissal or discharge for 
misconduct not connected with a pending dispute as distinguish-
ed from the requirement of obtaining previous permission under 
s. 6E(I) of ,the U. P. Act (or s. 33(1) of the Central Act) in cases 
of misconduct connected with a pending dispute indicated that 
the ban imposed by s. 6E(2) was not as rigid or rigorous as that 
ifuposed by s. 6E(r). The jurisdiction to give or withhold per-
mission was prima facie wider than the jurisdiction to give or 
withhold approval. Where the employer had held a proper 
domestic enquiry and had dismissed the workmen as a result 
of such enquiry, all that the Tribunal could do was to en-
quire: (i) whether the Standing Orders justified the dismissal, 
(ii) whether the enquiry had been held as provided by the 
Standing Orders, (iii) whether wages for one month had been 
paid and {iv) whether an application for approval had been made 
as prescribed. In the present case all these conditions were 
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
205 
satisfied but the Tribunal Jost sight of its limita_tions and ~ssum-
19
60 
•d powers of an appellate Court entitled to go mto quest10n of 
. 
The Lord f{rtsh1uJ 
fact. 
- Textile ]\,fills 
The Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Its Workmen, [1960] r 
v. 
S.C.R. 806, referred to. 
Its rvorkmen 
Q1<aere: 
Whether the application for approval under 
s 6E(2)(b) of the U. P. Act or under s. 33(2)(b) of the Central Act 
c~uld be made after the order of dismissal had been passed or 
whether it had to be made before passing such an order. 
Note:-Section 6E of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 is identical in terms with s. 33 of the Central Industnal 
Disputes Act, 1947· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
427of1959. 
Appeal by special leave from t_he A_ward dated 
February 18, 1958, of the Industrial Tnbuual (Tex-
tiles) U.P., Allahabad, in Petitions (under s. 6-E) Nos. 
(Tex.) 3 and 4 of 1957 and 1 of 1958. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and 
G. C .. llfathur, for tho appellant. 
B. P .. llfaheshwari, for the respondents. 
1960. December 12. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-Three applications made byGaj,,1d•agad11a,. J. 
the appellant the Lord Krishna Textile Mills under 
s. 6-E(2)(b) of the United Provinces Industrial Dis-
putes Act, 1947 (Act XXVIII of 1947) for obtaining 
the approval of the Industrial Tribunal to the dismis-
sal of 8 of its workmen have been rejected; and the 
Tribunal has refused to accord its approval to the 
action taken by the appellant. This appeal by special 
leave challenges the legality, validity as well as the 
propriety of the said order, and the principal questio

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