WORKMEN OF MESSRS FIRESTONE TYRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF INDIA (P.) LTD. versus MANAGEMENT & OTHERS

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 06-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 15 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
n 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
, 
p 
WORKMEN OF MESSRS FIRESTONE TYRE & 
RUBBER COMPANY OF INDIA (P.) LTD. 
v. 
"-iANAGEMENT & OTHERS (With connected appeals) 
· 
March 6, 1973 
· 
[l. D. DUA & C .. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
, JndustriGi Disputes Act 1947 as 
anze1i.ded 
by 
Industrial 
Disputes 
(Anzendnzent) Act 1971-Sect:on lIA, interpretation of-Power of Tri-
bunal ho•v far nzodificd-Section whether applicable to disputes referred 
before 15-12-71, when ft ca1ne into force. 
" 
The Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act 1971 ·inter alia introduced 
s .. llA int:J the parent Act of 1947. The new Section provided that if in 
the course of the adjudication of an Industrial dispute relating to 
the 
discharge or dismissal of a workm1:i a Labour Court, Tribunal, or Na-
. tionat Tribunal is satisfied that the o:-der of d:scharge or dismissal v1as. 
not justified, it may, by its a\vard, set aside the order of discharge or dis-
missal and direct reinstatement of the workmen or reduce punishment etc. 
The proyiso to the section laid do¥/n that i:i a1y procecdirig u:der the 
sectio:i the Court or Tribunal in question shall rely only on the material; 
on re:ord arid shall not take any fresh evidence jn relatio:i to the matter • 
. The sectio:i cam~ into force \Vith effect from D.'!;;:embcr 15, 1971. In the . 
pi-esent appeals by special "leave the two questions that arose for considera-
fon \\·ere: (i) ·whether s. llA had made any changes in the existing legal 
situatio:i as laid do\vn by this Cou':"t and if so, to \vhat extent; (ii) wh:!ther 
the section was app!icable to industrial disputes which had been already 
referred for adjudication and were pending as on December 15, 1972. 
HELD : (i) The statement of objects and reasons cannot be taken 
into account for the purpose o"f interpreting the plain words of the sec-
.tio:i. But it gives an indicatiori as _to 
what the Legislative wanted to 
achieve .. 
~608 A-BJ 
(ii) The .Ac-t is "a beneficial piece of legislation enacted in the interest 
cf employees. It is well settled that in construing the provisions of . a 
\velfare legislation, courts should adopt, what is described as. a beneficent 
rule .of construcfo:t. If t\vo constructions are reasonably possible to 
be 
placed on the section, it follows that the constructio~ which furthers the 
policy and object of the Act and is more. beneficial to the employees has 
to be preferred. 
The interpretation must be liberal enou~ to achieve 
the leg'.slative purpose. It must still be in accordance with the plain v;orCs: 
of the statute or the section and must not do violence to the language 
useJ by the legislature. It \vill further have to be found from the v.rords 
of the section whether it has altered the entire law as laid down in 
the 
existing decisions and, i'f so, whether there is a clear expression of that 
intention in the language of the sect:on. [608 G·H; 609 kC] 
· (iii) Both in respect of cases where a domestic enquiry has been held 
as also in cases \\'·hen the Tribunal considers the matter on the evidence 
adduced before it for the first time, the satisfaction under s. J lA, about 
the guilt or otherwise of the workmen concerned is that of the Tribunal. 
It has to consider the evidence and 
come to a conclusion one way or 
other. 
Even· in· cases where an enquiry has been held by an Cmployer 
and a finding of misconduct arrived at, the Tribunal can now differ from 
that finding in a proper case anO hold that no misconduct is proved. 
' 
. 
·. [611 A-CJ 
The contention that the ·stage for interference under·section llA by 
the Tribunal is reached only when it has to consider the punishment after 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 3 S.C'.R. 
having accepted the finding of guilt recorded by the employee, could not 
A 
be accepted.. The Tribunal under s. l lA can consider the question of 
guilt as well as of punishment. It can also alter the punishment imposed by 
an employer. [pll C-H; 612 A·B] 
· 
It was specifically contended before the Court in Workmen of Motipur 
Sugar Factories (Private) Limited, that when an employer had held no 
enquiry as required by the Standing Orders, it was not open to him to 
add~ce evidence before the Tribunal for the first time and justify the 
order of discharge. This contention was rejected by this Court and it was 
held that if the enquiry was defective or no inquiry had been held, 
as 
required by the Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the 
Tribunal and the employer would hav

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