WESTERN INDIA MATCH COMPANY LTD. versus WORKMEN

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 434 · Decided: 20-08-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

434. 
WESTERN INDIA MATCH COMPANY LTD. 
v. 
WORKMEN 
August 20, 1973 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND S, N. OWIVEDI, JJ.] 
Industrial Dispute-Probation 'for a period longer tlw.n tfrat· provided by the' 
employrr's Standing Order-Validity. 
lllllustrial Employmellt (Standing Orders) Act, 
1946-0bject ar.d 
polic.y 
of. 
• .4 A 
'B 
U.P. lndusfrial Disputes Act, s. 68-Scope of-'May' in sub. s. (2) .~lwuld 
.iC 
be read as 'shall'. 
Ltrbour Court-Power to modify Standin~; On/ers-rower to order re-
instatement. 
Under the Standing Order for the Watch and Ward staff of the appelh.>nt. 
'a permanent workman· is one 'who has completed a probationary period of 
two months as such and is employed on a permanent post;' and 'a probationer' 
i.~ 
is a workman 'who is provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy and 
u 
hfls not completed two momlrs service.' 
A watchman was appointed by the appellant on probation for a period of 
6 months. His period of probation was extended, and during the extended 
period. his services were terminated. There was an -industrial dispute and the 
questions. 
(1) 
wh~ther the termjnation was legal or justified. and 
(2) to 
what relief the workman was entitled, were refer!ed to the Labour Court. The 
Labour Court held that the order of discharge was neither mala fide nor an 
E 
act of Yictimisation; but set a~ide the order of discharge and directed reinstate~ 
ment of the employee on the view that the term regarding 6 months' probation 
in the employee's letter of appointment was in contravention of the Standing 
Order and was invalid. 
Di>missing the appeal to this Court. 
HELD: (1) 
The Labour Court has not travet:ed beyond the terms of 
reference. because, the validity or invalidity of the discharge depends on the 
validitv of the term regarding 6 months' probation. 
[4370-E] . 
(::!) Since, according to the Standing Order, a workman shall not be kept 
on probation for more than 2 months, the letter of appointment (or special 
agreement) is inconsistent with the Standing Order to t:b_e extent of the addi-
tional 4 months' probation. 
[437E-GT 
(3) The inconsistent part of the agreement. is ineffective and unenforce-
able. 
[439EJ 
(a) To uphold the special agreement would mean giving a go-by to the 
principle of three party participation. in the settlement of the terms of employ-
ment, incorporated in the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. 
The Act gives effect to the new thinking that Society' has also an interest in 
the settlement of the terms of employme!lt of industriaJ.labour, While formerly 
there were two parties at the negotiating table-the employer and the workman 
-it is now thought that there should also be present a third party, namely 
the State, representing society. The Certifying Officer under the Act. as the 
statutory representative of society, adjudges on the fairness or reasonable~ess 
of Standing Orders after considering and weighing the ~ocial interest in the 
F 
G 
H 
·. ~::c~(:;_~------ - ---- ... 
--····~----= 
-:::-.--
WESTERN INDIA MATCH CO. v. WORKM"N (D 
'" 
wivedi J.) 
435 
· A 
claims _of the _employer an~ the demands of the w 
. 
,. 
JI)COt, m the tliStant case, 1n so far as it rovid orkmen ... The special agree-
probation, contravenes the Standinl! Order. p 1439.!:_/.jr adJ1t1or.a1 4 months of 
(bJ The terms o~ employment specified in the'St· 
· 
over the correspondmg terms in the contract of and!ng 9rdcr. would prevail 
· eo.forcement of the Standing Order. lf a 
ri 
semce tn ~xiStencc on the 
tho Standing Order! will not survive an agre:m~~t agree'!lent Inconsistent with 
. J 
with th< Standing Order should atsd not prevail. 
~~~~eo·~~~~-~~d inconsistent 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Agm Ekclric Supply Cu. Ltd. v. Shri Alladiu (1970j 1 s c R 
JJtdla 
Ltd. 
v. 
Seco11d 
[lrdu.rtrial 
'Tril>umr/ 
· W · 808. A •·ery 
~.J-.R. 
1972 
S .C. 
1626. 
Till' Unill'll Prorinus £1 
. ••.rtS 
Bm11al, 
W. Affalulbad v. Tlt~ir Workmatt, [1972) 2 s c c 54 . nd <·~·tr1"" Eupdp/v 
Ct>. 
· · 
D · 
"b ti 
C 
L I 
<--[ 
• • • 
• a 
" 0 till ro e Elec 
mcrty 
rslrr II on 
o. 
It v • .,.. tm Erodt' El<'ctricity Di 1 "b · 
c 
· 
Etrtployt'rs Urrion, [1966) 2 :i.C.R. 498. 504, followed. s" 
111
'
011 
0
• Ltd. 
MJs J. 
K. Couou 
Manufoclur~rs. L~d., Kurrpur , .. J. N. Tewari 
A.l. R. 1959 All. o39 and BaNmu Electrtc Light arrtl Pouw Co. J.:d. Belrlupura 
v. Guvtrllltltlrl of Uttar l'radtsh ami Othtrs. [1962] 1 L. L.J 
14, overruled. · 
_ 
(c) ~ction 68 (1) of tbc U.P. Industrial Disp

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