CENTRAL INDIA COALFIELDS LIMITED CALCUTTA Vs. RAM BILAS SHOBNATH
LAWS(SC)-1960-3-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on March 31,1960

CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
RAM BILAS SHOBNATH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

TIN PRINTERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. A N KAUL [LAWS(DLH)-1966-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
DHRANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD VS. I G THAKORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(GJH)-1963-2-7] [REFERRED]
KOMAL SINGH VS. GENERAL MANAGER P SYNDICATE BANK [LAWS(ALL)-2006-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
P N V S V PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1994-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
BATA SHOE CO PR LTD VS. THIRD INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(CAL)-1973-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES EMPLOYEES UNION VS. ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(ORI)-1963-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF S R P TOOL LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-1974-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
WESTERN INDIA TANNERIES LIMITED VS. M R BHOPE [LAWS(BOM)-1990-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
MURLIDHAR RAGHOJI SAVANT VS. GENERAL MANAGER NATHER AND PLATTI LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1991-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
DHEERAN CHINNAMALAI TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(MAD)-2003-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA LIMITED VS. N P WADKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2001-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL PAPER MILLS LIMITED VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALPUNJABPATIALA [LAWS(P&H)-1962-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
TATA ENGINEERING AND LACOMOTIVE VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(PAT)-1995-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
HINDLEVER CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2010-1-369] [REFERRED TO]
GLAXO LABORATORIES INDIA LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT MEERUT [LAWS(SC)-1983-10-1] [EXPLAINED AND DISTINGUISHED]
NEW VICTORIA MILLS CO LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-1968-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
C KUNHIKUTTY VS. WORKMEN OF THE MALABAR ROADWAYS SERVICE [LAWS(KER)-1969-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
B P L INDIA LTD VS. B P L AND P S P THOZHILALI UNION [LAWS(KER)-1989-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAN VS. B P L SYSTEMS P LTD [LAWS(KER)-1994-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SUKHBIR SINGH BAIS [LAWS(MPH)-2013-2-122] [REFERRED TO]
KAKAJAN TEA ESTATE VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(GAU)-1966-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL COAL CO LTD. VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1971-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
EGERTON WOOLLEN MILLS BRANCH, DHARIWAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1962-3-44] [REFERRED]
M/S. HINDLEVER CHEMICALS LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2010-1-648] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.)An application made by the appellant, the Central India Coalfields Ltd., under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to the Labour Court, Nagpur at Bombay, sitting at Calcutta, for approval of its decision to dismiss its employee, the respondent Ram Bilas Shobnath, has been dismissed by the said tribunal. That is why the appellant has come to this Court by special leave to challenge the validity and the property of the said order.
(2.)The appellant is a limited company owning and managing a colliery at Chirimiri in Madhya Pradesh. There are staff quarters built by the appellant on its land for the residence of its employees and their families. The respondent had been employed by the appellant as a workman who performed his duties as an underground Munshi in the said colliery. A complaint was received against the respondent from several other workmen in the appellant's colliery that the respondent was guilty of rowdy and indecent behaviour at night on June 5, 1957. He went to the quarters of his co-workmen drunk and in a state of heavy intoxication. First he knocked violently at the door of Sarkar Babu, then at the door of Srivastava Babu and used dirty and filthy language of abuse. Then he moved to the door of Madhu Babu and began to tear down the screens and abused Madhu Babu. He then knocked at the door of Tulsi Babu who thought that there might be some accident and so he left his dinner and opened the door. The respondent then entered the room using filthy language and threw the articles in the room hither and thither. The neighbour then collected on the scene and with great difficulty took out the respondent from Tulsi Babu's room. At this time Ram Anjari Munshi was moving with the respondent. The complaint further alleged that the respondent was a drunkard and was in the habit of causing nuisance to his neighbours. Complaints had been made against him on several occasions in the past but no serious action had been taken against him. The complaint ended with the statement that if no serious action was taken against the respondent then the residents of the quarters would find it difficult to tolerate his indecent behaviour.
(3.)The charge contained in this complaint was explained to the respondent and enquiry was held on June 8, 1957. The statement made by the persons in the complaint against the respondent was read out in the presence of the respondent and he was asked what he had to say. The respondent's companion Ram Anjari Munshi also gave evidence in which he admitted the truth of the complaint made against the respondent. He confessed that he had also drunk liquor but he remembered the incident that took place. The respondent, however, pleaded that he was so drunk that he did not remember any thing about the incident. The respondent was then told that his companion had admitted that all the allegations made against him in the application were true and he was asked whether he had anything to say in defence. He replied that he had nothing to say in defence. As a result of this enquiry the officer made a report that the allegations made against the respondent were proved and in fact were admitted by the companion of the respondent and were in substance not denied by himself. So the officer thought that the respondent was guilty of misconduct as per Standing Order No. 29(5); and he reported accordingly. The appellant's Manager considered the report and took into account the fact that several charge-sheets had been filed against the respondent and repeated warnings had been given to him, and so he held that there was no alternative but to dismiss him. Accordingly an order of dismissal was passed against him under Standing Order No. 29(5). He was asked to take one month's wages from the accounts department in lieu of final settlement, after obtaining a clearance certificate from the department concerned as well as the stores department. It was under these circumstances that an application was made by the appellant for approval of the industrial tribunal to the appellant's decision to dismiss the respondent. At the hearing before the tribunal the respondent filed no written statement but his representative argued against the validity of the order.
;


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