LexVED PRAKASH GUPTA versus DELTON CABLE INDIA (P) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
VED PRAKASH GUPTA v. D.ELTON CABLE INDIA (P) LTD. l.t March 8, 1984. }).A. DESAI 0. CHJNNAPPA REDDY & A. VARADARAJAN JJ.) · Industrial Disputes .Act. 1947 S. 2(s)-Definition of Workman-Scope of- Covers.an employee whose substanriQl duty is of a securit)I inspector _at the gate of factO'.Y premises. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 2(ra)"-Dejinition of unfair labour practice- Scope of-Dimissal on flimsy gr/Jund-Wh;ther amounts to vict!mjzation or unfair labour pr:actlce by management. B c Natural Justice-Principle ... of-Enquiry officer nat summoning necessary D witnesses-Whether findings of enquiry ojfiCer pen>erse. The appellant, an.e1nployee_ of the respondent, was charg-:d for abusins,, some feHOw worker oi officer of the management within the premises of the_ factory of the respondent. In dome,.stic enquiry the Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the charge. The .mt\nag"ement dismissed the appellant. On a reference being made under s. tO(i)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 the Labour Cou~t held on preliminary issue that the reference was bad in law bccauSC>the appellant was not a workman under s. 2(s) of the Act. The Labour Court's findirigs w.:re challengCd by the appellant in a writ petition which was dismissed by· the High. Court in limine On a special leave petition being fi.Jed by the appellarit from which this appeal arises, this Court dfrected the Labour Court to try the other issues before it on the basis that the appellant was a workman. The Labour Court held that the finding of the Inquiry Officer was ... perverse; the punishment of dismissal was dispr0porti6nate to the gravity of the charge and the appllanl was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The management filed a writ petition in the High Co'urt challenging the findings of the Labour Court. This writ petition was transferred to this Court. Allowing the appeal and dismissing the.writ petition, HELD : A perusal of the evidenee shows that the substantial part of the work of the appellant consisted of looking after the security oflhe factory and its property by deputing t.he watchmen working under him to \\'Ork at the factory g~te or sending them to watch-towers or around the factory or to accoin.pany v.lSitors ·tb the factory and making entries in the visitors' register as regards the visitors and in the concerned registers as' Te&ards materjaJ entering or, going out of the premises oftlte factory. The ap~ellant could never appoint or dismiss any workman or or~er any enqu~? against any workm;in. In these circumstance' ·,-. E F G B A B c .D B . ., 1'70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.k it is hetd that the substantial duty of the' appellant was only that·of a Security Inspector at the &ate of the factory premises and that it was nelther-managerial nor supervisory in nature in the sense in. which those terms are understood in industriaJ law. Theref.ore he clearly falls within the definition of workman Under s. 2(s) of the Act and the reference of the dispute under s. IO(i)(c) of the Ac.tis valid in,aw. [17'IB·C, E-G] It is seen from the judgment of the Labour Court that though \be appellant had produced before the Enquiry Officer 5 sheetS of.papers with the signatures of about 100 workmen of the factory in support 'of the statement that the appellant had not abused anyone in the factory dufing the course 'of his servjce and the manage'ment had produced Exts. M-6, a list of 90 peisons before the Enquiry Officer, he ·h'!d not called any of those persons .to ascertain the- truth · regarding the allegCd abuse by the appellant. It is also seen from the judgment of the ·Labour Court that.the appe'llant was hot giVen a list of the management's witnesses before the commen9ement of the domestic enquiry. In these cir<:um· stances, the conclusion of the Labour Court that the Enquiry Officer had not acte4 properly in the proceedings ·and that he had not given full Opportunity to the appellant as required by law does not call for any interference: [178CE] The punishment ..awarded to the appellant is shockingly disproportionate "regard b,eing l;ad to the charge framed against him. No resporisible e~ployer would ever impose in like circumstances the .punishn1ent of dismissal to the em- ployee, and victimizatio~ or unfair labour practice.could well be inferred irom •the conduct of 'the management in aWarding the extreme punishn1ent of d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.