WORKMEN OF THE MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. versus MANAGEMENT OF MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., BANGALORE

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 15-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

WORKMEN OF 111E MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. 
v. 
MANAGEMENT OF MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., 
BANGALORE 
April 15, 1969 
(1. M. SHELAT, 
V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, 11.] 
lndu.rtri.al Dispure--Strike by work~n without notice against terms of 
uttlement between 
workmen's association 
and 
management-Strike 
wMthq saved from being illegal because call not given by association-
Strik• In breach of terms of settle'1U!nt is illegal zmd<r s. 29 of Industrial 
Dilputu Act, 1947-Distinction b.zw•en iU•galiry und<r s. 24 ands. 29-
Un/air labour practic~Victimisation-Findings of enquiry officer whether 
fMM'eTS•. 
There was settlement entered into on De<:ember 23, 1964 between the 
Motor Industries Company Employees Association and the management of 
the company. 
Under cl.-5 of the agreement it was agreed inter alia that 
the workmen will no! l1P oo strike without at least four days' notice. How-
. .,_ on May 11, 1966 the workmen went on strike without notice as a 
prollost against the suspension of ooe of the workmen. 
Later in the day 
Ill« discussions the workmen reswned work. On 
May 
18, 1966 the 
..i.bliabmtnt officer submitted a complaint to the Chief Penonnel Olllcer 
11 a result of which charge.sheets alfeging stoppage of work, abandoning 
place <if. work and inciting clerks and officers to join the strike were served 
upon five of the workmen. 
Against one of them the charge of disorder-
ly oooduct and intimidation was also made. 
The enquiry officer held 
three of the charged workmen guilty of acts of misconduct under staod-
lns order 22(2), (3), (13) and (18). ·The management passed orders of 
dimilsul against the three workmen. The industrial dispute thus arising 
waa referred to the Labour Court which held that the said enquiry wu 
validly held and that the management were justified in passing the orders 
of dlsmisu.l. 
In appeal by special leave the 'following contentions were raised on 
behalf of the workmen-appellants : (i) that the said association not having 
given a call for the said strike the said charges were misconceived and the 
orders of dismissal we"' consequently not smtainable; (ii) that the said 
'ltrike, which wu spontaneoosly staged by the workmen, was not illegal 
under s. 24 of the Industrial Disputes Act nor was it in contravention of 
any law as required by standing order 22(2) and (3); (iii) that the said 
diaciplioary proceedings were in contravention of the agreement arrived at 
on May 11, 1966, and therefore, the dismissal following such disciolinary 
proceedings amounted to unfair lahour practice: 
(iv) that the orders of 
ctismWal were passed on charges including that of intimidation though the 
misconduct of intimidation was not found hv the cnqWry officer and hetfce 
the said orders were illegal; (v) that to puni~h only three workmen when 
a large number of workmen had taken part in staging 
the strike and in 
inciting others to join it constituted victimisation: (vi) that the findings of 
the enquiry officer were based on no evidence or were perverse in that no 
reaeonable body of persons could have arrived 
at them on the evidence 
before him. 
HELD: (i) Clatl9C 5 of the settlemrnt dated December 23, 1964 did 
not contemplate any dichotomy betwtto the association and the workmen 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
WORKMEN V. MOTOR INDUST. CO. 
305 
as suggested on benalf of the appellants. Such an interpretation is repug-· 
nant to the principle that a settlement once arrived at by the association 
must be re4"fded as one made by it in its representative character, and 
therefore binding on the workmen. Therefore, although the settlement 
mentioned in cl. S the management, workmen and the association, 
the 
expression •work.men' therein was unnecessary, for without that expression 
also it would have been as efficaciously binding on the workmen as on the 
association. This conclusion was strengthened by the fact that the settle-
ment mentioned the management and the association on behalf of the 
workmen only as ·the parties thereto and the signatories thereto also were 
only the representatives of the two bodies. (309 F-HJ 
Further, tho appellants' contention if accepted would lead to a our• 
prisins result, namely, that though a strike at the instance of the associa· 
ilon required iour days' notice, a notice by the workmen without any call 
from the association would not require any 
such notice and that the 
settlement left complete liberty to the workmen to la

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