LexTHE MANAGEMENT OF RANIPUR COLLIERY versus BHUBAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPOR'.rS 719 THE MANAGEMENT OF RANIPUR COLLIERY v. BHUBAN SINGH AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJEN.DRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Standing Orders - Interpretation of- Enquiry-Whether includes proceedings b~fore Industrial Tribunal -Industrial Disputes Aet, z947 (z4 of z947)~ss. 3, 33A. The Company after regular enquiry and pending permission of the Industrial Tribunal under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, suspended some workmen without pay, whereupon the workmen filed applications under s. 33A of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that their suspension without pay beyond ten days was against the provisions of the Standing Orders governing their conditions of service to the effect that an employee might be suspended provided the suspension without pay, whether as punishmo:nt or pending enquiry, did not exceed ten days. Th,e Tribunal dismissed the workmen's applications under s. 33A and granted permission to the Company to dismiss the workmen concerned. The workmen appealed. The Appel- late Tribunal upheld the order granting permission to dismiss the workmen but came to the conclusion that the words "pend- ing enquiry " in cl. 27 of the Standing Orders included proceed- ings before the Industrial Tribunal and that there was breach of the Standing Orders. Held, that the employer could apply under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for permission to dismiss an employee when after a regular enquiry he had come to the find- ing that the case against the employee was proved and that the punishment of dismissal was the proper punishment. The Indus- trial Tribunal had not to enquire into the conduct of the employee or the merits of dismissal but see whether a prima faeie case had been made out and a fair enquiry made by the employer. The time taken before the Tribunal in such proceed- ings was beyond the control of the employer. Standing Orders were concerned with employers and employees and not with Tribunals. In the instant case, the words "pending enquiry" in cl. 27 of the Standing Orders, referred only to the enquiry by the employer and not to the pro- ceedings before the Tribunal.. The principle laid down in Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mill's case that workmen would not be entitled to payment of wages during the whole period of suspension if the Tribunal gave permission to dismiss them, would apply only to cases where there was a ban under s. 33 and the employer had to apply under that section for lifting the ban after completing the enquiry. '959 April 2I. 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1959] Supp. '959 Rampalat Chamar v. The Assam, Oil Co. Ltd., (r954) L.A.C. 78, dissented from. ' The Management The A"tomobile Products of India Ltd. v. Rukamji Bala, [r955] of Ranipur I S.C.R. r241, referred to. ~ · _ , Colliery Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup, [r95(i] v. S.C.R. 916, followed and explained. Bhuban Singh &- Others CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 768 of I957. Appeal by special leave from the judgme11t and order dated September 2I, 1956, of the Labour Appel- late Tribunal of India at Calcutta in· Appeal No. Cal. IOI of 1956. M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, 8. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellants. Dipak Dutta Choudhri, for the respondents. , I959. April 2_1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by , ' , , wanchoo J. 'V ANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special le:J.ve • against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India in an industrial matter. The appellant is the · Ranipur Colliery (herein:J.fter called the company) which carries on the business of coal mining in Disher- garh (\Vest Bengal). The respondents are six work- men employed by the company. They along with, another person were working as tub-checkers. It was found that they were making false reports both as to quality and quantity of coal, which it was their duty to check, with the result that the company suffered loss. Consequently, the company served charge-sheets on them and a regular enquiry was held on April I3, I955, at which they were present and had full oppor- tunity to give their explanation, cross-examine witnes- ses and generally contest the charge. The company came to the conclusion after the enquiry that the workmen were guilty of the misconduct with which they were charged and should be dismissed. As, how- ever, an i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.