B N ELIAS AND COMPANY (PRIVATE) LTD Vs. SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
LAWS(CAL)-1918-2-1
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 20,1918

B N ELIAS AND COMPANY (PRIVATE) LTD Appellant
VERSUS
SECOND INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The applicant is B.N. Elias and Company Private Ltd. It is directed against the award of the Second Industrial Tribunal. By the award the Tribunal set aside the applicant's dismissal of the Respondent workman Sailendra Nath Bose and directed his re-instatement.
(2.) The workman in this case was dismissed on the ground of his deafness. That the workman is deaf is admitted. That he has to use a hearing aid is also admitted. It is admitted that he has put in about years of service. He began his career with a slight defect of hearing but later on it appears the defect increased until in February, 1957, he had to take resort to a hearing aid. Medical certificates are unanimous on the point of deafness, but are divergent on the effect of it. Dr. Feldmann, M.D., the company's doctor says that it is a serious defect and describes him as "suffering from crippling deafness of both his ears". He took an audiogram. He found his bone conduction to be not good and not fit for operation. He expressed the opinion that "unless he is particularly competent in some kind of work where he can plod along without being disturbed by questions, he is unfit for office work". Major K. K. Ghose, Professor of Surgery of the Medical College Hospitals, Calcutta, Ear, Nose and Throat Department, gives a guarded certificate. He also certifies that "he is a subject of otosclerosis". But he goes on to express; the opinion that he can hear "ordinary conversation across the table with the hearing "aid he is using". He expressed the opinion that he was fit to carry on the duties of clerk "which does not entail any great acuteness of hearing''. He was working in the Provident Fund Section where it would be wrong to think that it was ordinary conversation not requiring any great acuteness of hearing. Schemes and tables of provident fund and figures would be surely not ordinary conversation. Where doctors differed the Tribunal intervened and by putting a few questions in Court found him to give appropriate replies. The Tribunal says "the Petitioner came to the witness box with the hearing aid which he was using. I put some questions to him in a normal tone in order to test whether he can hear with the help of the hearing aid and he gave appropriate replies to the questions put to him by me". He came to the conclusion that "the Petitioner is fit "enough to carry on the duties of the clerk with the hearing aid "he has been using".
(3.) Ordinarily I am loath to interfere with a finding of fact, do not propose here also to interfere with the finding of fact because the question of jurisdiction raised in this application seems to me to be unanswerable. I should however say only this on the particular point that it is necessary to emphasise the wholesome principles laid down by the Supreme Count in Messrs. Indian Iron and Steel Company v- Their Workmen INDIAN IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED V. THEIR WORKMEN, 1958 AIR(SC) 130.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.