WORKMEN OF MOTIPUR SUGAR FACTORY (PRIVATE) . LIMITED versus MOTIPUR SUGAR FACTORY

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 588 · Decided: 30-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

WORKMEN OF MOTIPUR SUGAR FACTORY (PRIVATE) . A 
LIMITED 
v. 
MOTIPUR SUGAR FACTORY 
March 30, 1965 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C J:. K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH 
AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.J 
B 
Industrial Disputes-Discharge of workmen on account of fJO-
slow-Reference as to whether discharge justified-Tribunal, if could 
decide go-slow-No enquir11 before discharge-If discharf}e could be 
justified before Tribunal. 
The workers of the respondent started a go-slow in its sugar 
factory. Therefore, the respondent issued a general notice to those 
wo~kmen and individually to each workman notifving that unless 
he recorded his willingness to discharge his duties faithfully and 
diligently so as to give a certain minimum output, he will be no 
longer employed; and that he must record his willingness in the 
office by a certain time, failing which he shall stand discharged 
from the service of the respondent 
without any further notice. 
Because the appellrnts. who were 119 of such workmen, failed to 
record their willingness, the respondent issued a notice discharging 
their services. The respondent held no enquiry as required by the 
Standing Orders before dispensing .,;;th the services of the appel-
lants. A general strike followed resulting in a joint application by 
both the parties to the Government and the Government referred 
the question to the Tribunal, whether the dischar;ie of the workmen 
was justified. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was 
go-slow during the period, and consequently held that the discharge 
of the workmen was .fully justified. In appeal by Special Leave the 
appellant contended that (i) all that the Tribunal was concerned 
with was to decide whether the discharge of the workmen for not 
giving an undertaking was justified or not, and that it was no part of 
the duty of the Tribunal to decide whether the~e was go-<;Jow which 
would justify the order of discharge; (ii) Since the respondent held 
no enquiry as required by the Standing Orders, it could not justify 
the discharge before the Tribunal and (iii) the finding of the Ttibunal 
that go-slow had been proved was perverse and the Tribunal had 
ignored relevant evidence in coming to the concluiion. 
HELD: The contentions must le rejected. 
(i) Taking 'into account the wide terms of reference, the manner 
in which it was understood before the Tribunal, and the fact that 
it must be read alongwith the two notices, particularly because it 
was made soon thereafter at the joint application of the parties, 
the Tribunal was entitled to go into the real dispute between the 
parties, namely whether the discharge was justified on the ground 
that there was misconduct in the form of go-slow by the workmen 
concerned. [596D] 
(ii) No distinction can be made between cases when the domestic 
enquiry is invalid and those where no enqu.iry has in fact been held. 
This Court has consistently held that if the domestic enquiry is 
irregular, invalid or improper, the Tribunal may give an opportunity 
588 
0 
D 
E 
., 
G 
B 
WORKMEN v. MOTIPUR FACTORY (Wanchoo, J.) 
589 
A 
to the employer to prove his case and in doing so the Tribunal tries 
the merits itself. [598A-C] 
Case law referred to. 
(iii) As the case involved the discharge of 119 workmen, this 
Court went into the evidence, and the evidence showed that the 
decision of the Tribunal was not wrong that there was go-slow and 
B 
that the discharge was fully justified, [598E] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 108 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award d;ited May 11, 1962, 
of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna in Reference No. 4 of 
1961. 
Ranen Roy, Jai Krishan, G. S. Chatterjee, E. Udayarathnam 
for A. K. Nag, for the appellants. 
Niren De, Addi. Solicitor-General and Naunit Lal, for the 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Wanchoo, J. 
This is an appeal by special leave against the 
award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar. · It relates to the dis-
charge of 119 workmen of the respondent who were employed 
as cane carrier mazdoors or as cane carrier supervisors or jamadars. 
All these were seasonal workmen. It is necessary to set out in 
some detail the circumstances leading to the discharge. The res-
pondent is a sugar factory and the crushing season starts usually 
in the frrst half of November each year. 
We are concerned in the 
present appeal with November and December 1960. It appears 
that from the season 1956-57, the re

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