MANAGEMENT OF SWATANTRA BHARAT MILLS NEW DELHI Vs. RATAN LAL
LAWS(SC)-1960-3-2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 28,1960

MANAGEMENT OF SWATANTRA BHARAT MILLS,NEW DELHI Appellant
VERSUS
RATAN LAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. VIRENDER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2004-10-127] [REFERRED TO]
L SUBBA NARASIMHA MURTHY VS. BHARATH ELECTRONICS LTD [LAWS(KAR)-1980-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
CHUNNILAL RATHOR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ORI)-1974-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA ROAD TRANSPORT CO LIMITED VS. CHANDRA SEKHAR PATNAIK [LAWS(ORI)-1975-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF CHERAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-2003-7-218] [REFERRED TO]
MOTIPUR ZAMINDARI CO PRIVATE LTD VS. KEDAR NATH SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1965-9-7] [REFERRED]
TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD VS. M K VASUDEVAN PILLAI [LAWS(KER)-1968-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
COMINCO BINANI ZINC LTD VS. MOHANAN [LAWS(KER)-1993-1-71] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHEN VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(DLH)-1970-5-47] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL R JOSHI VS. AIR INDIA LTD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-2001-7-165] [REFERRED]
TATA CHEMICALS LTD AND 1 VS. KIRIT B BAROT AND 1 [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-520] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.)An application made by the appellant, the Management of Swatantra Bharat Mills, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, under S. 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for approval of its decision to dismiss from its employment its employee Mr. Ratanlal, the respondent, has been dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court by Special Leave.
(2.)The appellants carries on business as a textile mill at Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, which is owned and managed by the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. The respondent had been employed as a number marker in the bundling and baling department of the appellant. There are three bundling presses in the mills where bundles of yarn of 10 lbs. each are made out and marked by label signifying the weight, quality, etc. Thereafter the said bundles had to be carried in a trolley by the respondent (who is a time-rated workman) to the baling press. This press is at some distance from the bundling press. The packing of smaller bundles into a large bale was the work of baling-press men who are piece-rated workers. After the baling is done the respondent had to mark the bales with proper marking showing the quality, number of yarn, weight, etc., of the yearn packed. The respondent had been working for a long time past and discharging his duties in the manner indicated.
(3.)It appears that the respondent became slack and negligent in his duties in June 1957 with the inevitable result that production went down. A charge-sheet was then served on him on June 24, 1957, again on July 16, 1957 and August 5, 1957, for acts of misconduct under the Standing Orders; but before any action could be taken against him the respondent tendered an apology on December 4, 1957, in which he admitted his fault and promised that he would do his best in future to deliver normal number of 10 lbs. bundles as he used to do and to do other normal duties so that the production may not be affected. Thereupon the appellant warned him and took no further action against him.
;


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