ANDHRA SCIENTIFIC COMPANY LIMITED Vs. A SESHAGIRI RAO
LAWS(SC)-1960-12-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on December 13,1960

ANDHRA SCIENTIFIC COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
A.SESHAGIRI RAO Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD NOOH [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1975-11-16] [REFERRED]
DAWN MILLS CO. LTD. VS. SUKHDEV PRASAD DHANESHWAR & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-1988-7-94] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED VS. A VIJAYAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-1980-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
KULENDRA LAHKAR VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2003-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
ANDREW YULE AND CO LTD VS. FIFTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1973-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
M. RAJENDRAN VS. THE MANAGEMENT OF ARUL ANANDARCOLLEGE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-10-192] [REFERRED TO]
BASTI SUGAR MILLS CO LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-3-179] [REFERRED TO]
MOOK BADHIR BALAK OR BALIKA BADHIT BAL VIKAS KENDRA JHALAWAR ROAD VS. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT, KOTA [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPN LTD VS. CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(CAL)-2005-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. LACHCHHA RAM AND ANOTHER [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-11-44] [REFERRED]
R ANANDAN VS. TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-335] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTALAL VAGHJIBHAI VS. VIVEKANAND MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1969-5-4] [REFERRED]
MAHAJAN BOREWELL COMPANY BANGALORE VS. RAJARAM BHAT [LAWS(KAR)-1997-10-12] [FOLLOWED ON]
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation LTD VS. Central Government Industrial Tribunal [LAWS(CAL)-2002-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
NAVINCHANDRA SHAKERCHAND SHAH VS. AHMEDABAD CO OP DEPARTMENT STORES LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1977-3-1] [REFERRED]
CALCUTTA INSURANCE LTD. VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-1974-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN OF LAMBABARI TEA ESTATE VS. LAMBABARI TEA ESTATE [LAWS(SC)-1965-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
ZACHARIAS N S VS. JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION SECONDARY [LAWS(MAD)-1999-1-50] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARAVEL R VS. TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANR [LAWS(MAD)-1999-8-166] [REFERRED]
DELHI CONSUMERS CO OPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORE LIMITED VS. JAGE RAM [LAWS(DLH)-2002-1-138] [REFERRED TO]
ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD VS. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-1979-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
BABULALDAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASHCHANDRA TYAGI VS. SOMA TAXTILE [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-226] [REFERRED TO]
T.P. Sridharan VS. The Management of Kedukal Estate, and another [LAWS(KAR)-1964-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL WATER PROOF WORKS (1940) LTD. AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1969-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH VS. INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-1971-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
BISHAN AND OTHERS VS. THE LABOUR COURT, MEERUT AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1979-3-88] [REFERRED TO]
TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS CO. LTD. VS. FIRST INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(CAL)-1981-11-30] [REFERRED TO]
HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-2005-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
N VANNIASAMY VS. TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-338] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Das Gupta, J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave is against an order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh refusing to interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution with the award of the Labour Court, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, in an industrial dispute referred to that Court under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute referred was stated in the order of reference in the following words:-
"Whether the suspension of Shri A. Seshagiri Rao from 28th April, 1956, and his subsequent dismissal from 16th March 1957. is justified If so, to what relief is he entitled -.

(2.)A. Seshagiri Rao has been in the employment of the appellant concern, the Andhra Scientific Co., since 1927 and continued in service even after it was converted into a public limited company. From 1927 to 1930 he was the office Manager of the company in its Madras Branch. In 1930 he was brought to the Head Office at Masulipatam and was made the. Manager of the General Stores Department. He continued to he in charge of the Stores Department from 1930 to April 25, 1956, when he was transferred to the Quotations Department. Three clays later he was placed under suspension by tin order of the Director Shri K. Ramanatha Babu alla a chargesheet containing numerous charges under eight heads was communicated to him on that very day. The first charge which stated that his handling of the stores had throughout been most reckless and inefficient and his work was always unsatisfactory mentioned three instances of bad work under heads (a), (b) and (c). The third charge which alleged that in day to day handling of the stores he was very careless mentioned instances of such carelessness under heads, A. B. C. D and E. The 8th charge contained four sub-heads. Shri A. Seshagiri Rao denied all the charges hut after an enquiry which was commenced on September 3, 1956, and closed on March 16, 1957, he was found guilty of the charges and dismissed.
(3.)The Labour Court rejected the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the company that Seshagiri Rao was not a "workman" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. It held that the rules of natural justice had been violated in holding the enquiry inasmuch as the General Manager who presided over the enquiry' in its initial stage was later examined as a witness and Shri Ramanatha who was looking after the enquiry on behalf of the company, presided over the enquiry in the later stage and gave the final decision or an examination of the evidence adduced before him the Labour Court held that the charges other than la and 8 had not been made out; that the charges 1a and 8 had only been partially made out and that the laches in respect of these charges were not so grave as to justify dismissal. He held, therefore, that the dismissal was unjustified but the workman deserved some punishment. Considering a suspension from service for a period of one year from March 16, 1957, the date of dismissal as proper and sufficient punishment he ordered reinstatement at the rate of Rs. 250 from March 16, 1958, till the date of reinstatement and subsistence allowance during the pendency of the departmental enquiry at the rate of half of the pay from April 28, 1956, till March 16, 1957.
;


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