M L BOSE AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED CALCUTTA Vs. ITS EMPLOYEES
LAWS(SC)-1960-3-4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 28,1960

M.L.BOSE AND COMPANY,PRIVATE LIMITED CALCUTTA Appellant
VERSUS
ITS EMPLOYEES Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

GOVERNMENT OF A P VS. K BASAVAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2008-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
B KALYANASUNDARAM PROPRIETOR B N PRESS MADRAS VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1965-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF UNITED BLEACHERS PRIVATE LTD VS. UNITED BLEACHERS PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(MAD)-1967-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
RANGARATHINAM PILLAI VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-1968-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
KAMGAR SABHA VS. HACL INJECTIONS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1976-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SATBIR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-378] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF PANITOLE TEA ESTATE VS. WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1971-2-58] [APPROVED]
NAVINCHANDRA SHAKERCHAND SHAH VS. AHMEDABAD CO OP DEPARTMENT STORES LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1977-3-1] [REFERRED]
MARSI BALAYYA AND 14 ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1975-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF INTEGRATED ELECTRIC CO PVT LTD VS. K B GANGAIAH C/O KODE THIMMAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2014-1-313] [REFERRED TO]
AGRA TIN MANUFACTURING CO. VS. AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-1967-7-46] [REFERRED TO]
R SANKARAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1976-3-83] [REFERRED]
K V S VS. PRAVEEN KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-357] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial dispute between the appellant M/s. M. L. Bose and Co., Calcutta, and the respondents, its workmen. Five items of dispute were referred by the West Bengal Government to the Third Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication; the principal amongst them was in regard to the dismissal of 47 persons. The respondents urged that this dismissal was wrongful and illegal and the dismissed workmen were entitled to reinstatement. The other items of dispute were in regard to the scale of pay, dearness allowance, holidays and leave. The industrial tribunal has held that the dismissal of the 47 workmen was illegal and has directed their reinstatement. It has also ordered that the appellant should pay them 1/3 of their total emoluments for the period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. In regard to the other items of dispute the tribunal has made appropriate orders. In the present appeal we are principally concerned with the order of reinstatement.
(2.)The appellant is a private limited company which manufactures Laxmibilas Hair Oil, Barley and other products. It is a small concern and carries on its business on the cottage industries scale. Sometime in January 1957 a charter of demands was submitted by the appellant's workmen, and according to the appellant soon thereafter the workmen started coercive measures by way of slow down of production. On April 15, 1957, the appellant issued a notice calling upon its employees to stop subversive activities and to co-operate with the appellant; but according to the appellant this notice had no effect on the workmen.
(3.)The respondents' case, on the other hand, is that the appellant disliked the fact that its workmen had formed a union which was registered on November 2, 1956, and it is this dislike which is really responsible for the subsequent events. The charter of demands submitted by the respondents to the appellant was forwarded by the respondents to the Labour Commissioner as well on February 19, 1957. The Labour Commissioner called for the comments of the appellant on the said charter. The appellant then swiftly reacted against this development by putting a notice which is alleged to have been hung up on the notice board on April 15, 1957, calling upon the workers to stop agitational activities. That according to the respondents is the genesis of the said notice.
;


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