BATA SHOE CO PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. D N GANGULY
LAWS(SC)-1960-12-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 15,1960

BATA SHOE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
D.N.GANGULY Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

DESU KARAMCHARI ADHIKAR SURAKSHA SAMITI VS. MCD [LAWS(DLH)-2001-9-225] [REFERRED 2.]
KARAMCHARI ADHIKAR SURAKSHA SAMITI VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2001-9-132] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGA TOOLS LTD VS. PRAGA TOOLS LTD [LAWS(APH)-1974-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
WORKERS AND STAFF ASSOCIATION OF GOVT SOAP FACTORY VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1970-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES MANUFACTURING CO PRIVATE LTD VS. FIFTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(CAL)-1969-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
ANTHONY GOMES VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1974-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
P C BANK VS. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK [LAWS(CAL)-1979-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
WORKERS OF BUCKINGHAM AND CARNATIC CO VS. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND CHIEF CONCILIATION OFFICER AND [LAWS(MAD)-1963-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
JAYASHANKARA GOWDA VS. CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-1988-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF STANDARD FURNITURE COMPANY LTD VS. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER AND CONCILIATION OFFICER AND [LAWS(KER)-1965-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
G ANNEDUARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-11-77] [REFERRED TO]
PADMANABHAN MENON T K VS. INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD [LAWS(KER)-1967-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION LTD VS. MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(MPH)-1999-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
B K JOBANPUTRA VS. B S KALEKAR [LAWS(BOM)-1964-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1974-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
JOBANPUTRA B K VS. KALELKAR B S [LAWS(BOM)-1964-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN DAS VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER TRAFFIC AND RAW MATERIAL DEPT [LAWS(ORI)-2005-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
MUMBAI SHRAMIK SANGH VS. N D RATHOD CONCILIATION OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-1991-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
CHANGUNABAI CHANOO PALKAR VS. KHATAU MAKANJI MILLS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1991-6-43] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF MADRAS ALUMINIUM CO LTD VS. R PAULMANICKAM [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-286] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN TELEPRINTERS EMPLOYEES UNION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2007-4-117] [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI KAMGAR SANGH VS. KRANTIKARI KAMGAR UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2011-6-172] [REFERRED TO]
TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1978-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STEEL TUBES LIMITED VS. GUJARAT STEEL TUBES MAZDOOR SABHA [LAWS(SC)-1979-11-34] [RELIED ON]
WOKMEN OF SUR ENAMEL AND STAMPING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGALS AND VICE VERSA [LAWS(SC)-1972-3-42] [REFERRED]
MICO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1982-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
MICO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1986-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF THE STANDARD FURNITURE CO LTD VS. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER AND COCILIATION OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-1965-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
MONTHLY-RATED WORKMEN OF PIERCE LESLIE AND CO VS. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CHIEF CONCILIATION OFFICER KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1966-11-29] [REFERRED TO]
BRITANNIA BISCUIT CO LTD VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR HEAD QUARTERS [LAWS(MAD)-1982-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
M D CO-OPERATIVE SUGARS LTD VS. SECRETARY PALGHAT DISTRICT PROGRESSIVE SUGAR [LAWS(KER)-1996-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
N R C EMPLOYEES UNION VS. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES [LAWS(BOM)-2011-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(P&H)-1971-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
ISRAIL VS. CHAUDHARY SIA SARAN SINHA [LAWS(PAT)-1961-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE SOUTH KUJAMA COLLIERY VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(PAT)-1965-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER PODAR SPINNING MILLS JAIPUR VS. LABOUR COURT OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1980-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
EICHER GOODEARTH LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI KAMGAR SANGH VS. KRANTIKARI KAMGAR UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2011-1-181] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. HALDYN GLASS LIMITED VS. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2014-2-83] [REFERRED TO]
Sri Ram Chandra Swain VS. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Goutam Nagar [LAWS(ORI)-2009-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESH K. PATIL VS. NATIONAL AUTO ACCESSORIES LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2007-2-198] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHUSHAN PRASAD PURUSHOTTAM PRASAD MISHRA VS. HERCULES HOISTS LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1992-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGEMENT OF NAVAMANI AND CO. VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANR. [LAWS(MAD)-1971-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
COCA-COLA FACTORY WORKERS UNION (REGD.) VS. MANAGEMENT OF PUNJAB BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-1986-5-92] [REFERRED TO]
KESORAM INDUSTRIES AND COTTON MILLS LTD. VS. STATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1971-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
ITC LIMITED VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-503] [REFERRED]
WORKMEN OF HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED VS. C N NANJAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-1972-6-39] [REFERRED]
CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD VS. P C SEN [LAWS(CAL)-1977-8-63] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Wanchoo, J. - (1.)These are two connected appeals by special leave in an industrial matter and relate to the dismissal of sixty workmen of the appellant-company. The dispute was referred by two references; one relates to 31 workmen and the other to 29 workmen. They have been disposed of by a common award, though, as the references were two, there are two appeals before us.
(2.)The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these:On November 10, 1953, a general meeting was held by the workmen of the appellant and a no confidence motion was passed against the executives of the workmen's union and Shri Shahabuddin Bari was elected as the new president of the union. On February 6, 1954, the newly elected president served a strike notice on the management. On February 18, 1954, a settlement was arrived at between the management and Shri Fateh Narain Singh, the general secretary of the old executive committee. On February 23, 1954, the strike was launched in accordance with the notice served by Shri Bari and the strike continued for about a month. The strike was called off on March 19 to 20, 1954. The case of the appellant was that the strike which began on February 23, 1954, was an illegal strike as it took place during the currency of a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with the assistance of the Labour Commissioner who acted as conciliation officer. Consequently, the appellant took steps to serve charge-sheets on the workmen, who had joined the illegal strike, on March 4, 1954. This was followed by the dismissal of these sixty workmen after a managerial inquiry. It is said that thereafter there were conciliation proceedings which failed and consequently the two references were made.
(3.)The main findings of the tribunal are that the settlement of February 18, 1954, was a bona fide settlement arrived at during the course of conciliation proceedings and was therefore binding on the workmen; and consequently the strike which began on February 23, 1954, was in breach of the terms of the settlement and was therefore illegal. The tribunal further held that the strike was staged in hot-haste and no reasonable opportunity was given to the management to reply to the demands made before launching the strike. It also held that the trouble arose because of the election of Shri Bari and the new office bearers. This matter was referred to the Registrar of Trade Unions and he held that the meeting at which Shri Bari and the new office bearers were elected was irregular and in consequence the old office bearers of the union continued to remain validly elected executives of the union. This decision was given on February 22, 1954, and the strike was launched on February 23rd immediately thereafter. The tribunal was not sure whether this decision had been communicated to Shri Bari before the strike was launched; but in any case it was of the opinion that there was no reason to stage the strike in such hot-haste after the settlement of February 18, 1954. Having thus held that the strike was illegal and there was no reason why it should have been launched in such hot-haste, the tribunal went on to consider the case of these sixty workmen who were dismissed. It held that no charge of violence was brought home to these workmen and even the charge-sheets which were originally issued to the workmen did not contain any charge of violence. The tribunal then divided the sixty workmen into three batches of 47, 11 and 2. In the case of 47 workmen, it held that they must be assumed to have been served with charge-sheets as they refused to accept them and that proper inquiry was held into the charges, though in their absence. In the case of 11 workmen, it was of opinion that charge-sheets had not been served on them and therefore any inquiry held in their absence was of no avail. In the case of two workmen, it held that no attempt was made to serve any charge-sheet on them. Further, it set aside the order of dismissal with respect to 13 of the workmen on the ground that they were either not served with any charge-sheet or no charge-sheet was issued to them; as for the remaining 47, though it found that charge-sheets had been issued to them and they had refused to accept them and proper inquiry had been held in their case, it set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that they had not been shown to have taken part in violence and there were extenuating circumstances in their case inasmuch as they were misled to join the strike in order to oust the old office bearers of the union so that others might be elected in their place. It further pointed out that though a much larger number of workmen had taken part in the illegal strike and the union took up their case, only these sixty were eventually dismissed while the rest were reinstated. It was of the view that there was no reason for the appellant to make any distinction between these workmen and the others who were reinstated. It therefore ordered reinstatement of these 47 workmen also. Finally, it held that the workmen were sufficiently penalised, they being out of employment form March 1954 to February 1959 when it made the award and that there was no reason in the circumstances to maintain their dismissal. It awarded 50 per cent of the back basic wages to the two workmen in whose case charge-sheets were not even issued and 25 per cent of the back basic wages to the 11 workmen who were not served with charge-sheets; no back wages were allowed to the forty-seven workmen who had refused to accept the charge-sheets sent to them.
;


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