N KALINDI Vs. TATA LOCOMOTIVE AND ENGINEERING CO LTD
LAWS(SC)-1960-3-44
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 25,1960

N.KALINDI Appellant
VERSUS
TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LIMITED Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

DEVENDRA KUMAR NAYAK VS. SUDHA NAYAK [LAWS(MPH)-2013-10-69] [REFERRED TO]
R GANESAN VS. RANE LUK CLUTCH P LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2010-9-174] [REFERRED TO]
M SHAHUL HAMEED VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2011-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
V.R. Kelkar VS. The State of Mysore [LAWS(KAR)-1964-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
CONVENT OF OUR LADY OF PROVIDENCE GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHERS VS. ANITA NIGAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
S N MAHESHWARI VS. GENERAL MANAGER [LAWS(ALL)-2013-2-84] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-354] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. M VENKATA NARASAMMA ALIAS CHITTI BULLEMMA [LAWS(APH)-1971-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA SWAROOP SAXENA VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. VII AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-217] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL PRAKASH SHARMA VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-202] [REFERRED TO]
SARADA INDUSTRIES VS. M ELUMALAI [LAWS(MAD)-1972-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
S L TAGRA VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1998-2-64] [REFERRED]
R K SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-104] [REFERRED TO]
CRESCENT DYES AND CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. RAM NARESH TRIPATHI [LAWS(SC)-1992-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
S N SINGH VS. RAJ ATOMIC POWER PROJECT AND ANR [LAWS(RAJ)-1982-8-37] [REFERRED]
HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. CHOUDHARY SIA SARAN SINHA [LAWS(PAT)-1960-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
STANDARD POTTERY WORKS VS. STANDARD POTTERY WORKS EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(KER)-1981-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
C SADASHIVAN VS. KARNATAKA ANTIBIOTICS & PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-306] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF ENGLISH ELECTRIC COMPANY OF VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LAHOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-1974-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
V. MATHIVANAN VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION)/DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY [LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-595] [REFERRED TO]
MONOTOSH KANTI DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2013-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
PERTABGHUR TEA ESTATE VS. HIREN BHUMIJ AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
P MUNIRATHNAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
UDHAM SINGH KEHAR SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-1970-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
HARIDAS MALAKAR VS. JAY ENGINEERING WORKS [LAWS(CAL)-1974-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN ALIGARH GRAMIN BANK VS. LATOORI SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2003-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
SRIVASTAVA N K VS. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(ALL)-2004-10-67] [REFERRED TO]
G L SUBRAMANIAM VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS COCHIN [LAWS(SC)-1972-2-21] [DISTINGUISHED]
CIPLA LIMITED VS. RIPU DAMAN BHANOT [LAWS(SC)-1999-4-141] [REFERRED]
OSWAL STEEL EMPLOYEE UNION VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-1996-5-319] [REFERRED]
CALCUTTA JUTE MANUFACTURING CO LIMITED CALCUTTA VS. CALCUTTA JUTE MANUFACTURING WORKERS UNION CALCUTTA [LAWS(SC)-1961-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
GURMEET SINGH VS. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(P&H)-2021-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK VS. RAMESH CHANDRA MEENA [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2001-10-40] [REFERRED]
BIECCO LAWRIE LTD VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAM HARAKH TEWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-1968-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF RAM LAL ANAND COLLEGE VS. WORKMAN SH C L YADAV [LAWS(DLH)-2006-1-83] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA S/O. SURYABHAN WAHANE VS. BANK OF BARODA & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-11-107] [REFERRED TO]
MONA JIGNESH ACHARYA VS. BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2021-12-865] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR CHANDHOK VS. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-187] [REFERRED TO]
COSMO FERRITES LTD VS. STATE OF H P & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-104] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER DEVADAR AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL VS. USHA U. [LAWS(KER)-2020-5-216] [REFERRED TO]
G R VENKATESHWARA REDDY VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1994-6-19] [FOLLOWED ON]
ANIL KUMAR VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-2018-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
RASIKLAL PATEL VS. KAILASGAURI RAMANLAL MEHTA [LAWS(GJH)-1970-9-7] [REFERRED]
MITESH MANUBHAI SHETH VS. SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPTT. OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS [LAWS(GJH)-1997-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
RITU PRAKASH DESAI VS. WILLINGDON SPORTS CLUB [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-258] [REFERRED TO]
LATOORI SINGH VS. CHAIRMAN ALIGARH GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(ALL)-2003-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO TLD VS. SAUMITRA MOHAN KUMAR ALIAS SAUMITRA KUMAR [LAWS(CAL)-1983-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
KINGFISHER AIRLINES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-122] [REFERRED TO]
P.M. RUIKAR TRUST YAVATMAL AND ORS. VS. PUNJARAM AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI KANWAR VS. LAXMAN SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR HINDUSTAN TELEPRINTERS LTD VS. M RAJAN ISAAC [LAWS(MAD)-2005-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
DEVADAR AIDED L.P. SCHOOL VS. USHA [LAWS(KER)-2020-5-227] [REFERRED TO]
D G RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE VS. K RAGHURAM BABU [LAWS(SC)-2008-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL PAPER MILLS LIMITED VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALPUNJABPATIALA [LAWS(P&H)-1962-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
MITESH MANUBHAI SHETH VS. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1997-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
HILLERY FASHION COTFAB LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-5-564] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH GUPTA PRABHU PRAKASH GUPTA VS. NIDESHAK KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK BHARAT SARKAR NIDESHAK MANDAL ADHYAKSH [LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-79] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. VS. KINGFISHER AIRLINES LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-134] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY PAL SINGH VS. D P ARORA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-153] [REFERRED TO]
S N MAHESHWARI VS. G M , SYNDICATE BANK AND 4 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-459] [REFERRED]
KISHOR KUMAR G. C. VS. KARNATAKA STATE HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT ORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2020-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDRA PRASAD SINGH VS. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(PAT)-2002-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
J K AGGARWAL VS. HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1990-9-41] [CITED]
MYSORE PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED BANGALORE VS. WORKMEN OF MYSORE PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1997-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD VS. K V RAMA REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2006-9-67] [REFERRED TO]
JOY AICH VS. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-1-126] [REFERRED TO]
VAIKOM TALUK CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD VS. ANILKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2020-1-309] [REFERRED TO]
A. MADHUSUDHAN RAO VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, SYNDICATE BANK [LAWS(APH)-2012-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
STEPHENS HOSPITAL VS. WORKMAN SH. S.K. ADHIKARI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-266] [REFERRED TO]
SAU. YOJNA BHARAT MALI VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-220] [REFERRED TO]
S S SHARMA VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-1996-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH PRAKASH BHATT VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANER [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-12-19] [REFERRED]
DUNLOP RUBBER CO INDIA LIMITED VS. THEIR WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1964-11-16] [FOLLOWED]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION [LAWS(SC)-1998-12-74] [RELIED ON]
FRANCIS VS. BANK OF COCHIN LTD [LAWS(KER)-1987-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
T.SELVARAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-339] [REFERRED TO]
TMUNISWAMY VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(KAR)-1963-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHAV MADHAV FILAMENTS PVT. LTD VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-822] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. COSMO FERRITES LTD. VS. STATE OF H.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
AMBRISH KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. SUBHASH N GHODKE [LAWS(BOM)-1999-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN, KRUSHI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI VS. BHAIYYA S/O. PUNDLIKRAO KOTHE [LAWS(BOM)-1983-2-46] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Das Gupta, J. - (1.)When the management of an industry holds an enquiry into the charges against a workman for the purpose of deciding what action if any, should be taken against him, has the workman a right to be represented by a representative of his Union at the enquiry That is the principal question raised in this appeal. The 14 appellants, all workmen in M/s. Tata Locomotives Engineering Co., Ltd., Jamshedpur, were dismissed under the orders of the company's management on the result of an enquiry held against them. As industrial disputes between these workmen and the company were at that time pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, the company filed applications purporting to be under S. 33 of the industrial Disputes Act praying for approval of the action taken by it against the workmen. Workmen also filed application under S. 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act complaining of the action taken against them by the company. The applications of the company under S. 33 were however ultimately held to have become infructuous and the applications under S. 33A were only considered and disposed of by the Labour Court. The applications of these 14 appellants were however dismissed. Against that order the appellant have preferred this appeal after having obtained special leave for the purpose.
(2.)The common contention urged on behalf of the appellants was that the enquiry on the results of which the orders of dismissal were based was not a proper and valid enquiry inasmuch as the workmen were not allowed to be represented at the enquiry by a representative of the Jamshedpur Union to which these workmen belonged. It has been urged that fair play demands that at such an enquiry the workman concerned should have reasonable assistance for examination and cross-examination of the witnesses and for seeing that proper records are made of the proceedings. It has been argued that a representative of the workmen's Union is best suited to give such assistance and in the absence of such assistance the workman does not get a fair chance of making his case before the Enquiry Officer. It appears that when on June 5, 1953, requests were made on behalf of the several workmen that they should be allowed to be represented by a representative of the Jamshedpur Mazdoor Union at the enquiry to conduct the same on workmen's behalf, the management rejected this request but informed the workmen that they could, if they so desired, be represented by a coworker from the workmen's own department at the enquiry. The question which arises therefore is whether this refusal of the workmen's request to be represented at the enquiry by a representative of their Union vitiated the enquiry.
(3.)Accustomed as we are to the practice in the courts of law to skilful handling of witnesses by lawyers specially trained in the art of examination and cross-examine of witnesses, our first inclination is to think that a fair enquiry demands that the person accused of an act should have the assistance of some person, who even if not a lawyer may be expected to examine and cross-examine witnesses with a fair amount of skill. We have to remember however in the first place that these are not enquiries in a court of law. It is necessary to remember also that in these enquiries, fairly simple questions of fact as to whether certain acts of misconduct were committed by a workman or not only fall to be considered, and straightforward questioning which a person of fair intelligence and knowledge of conditions prevailing in the industry will be able to do will ordinarily help to elicit the truth. It may often happen that the accused workman will be best suited, and fully able to cross-examine the witnesses who have spoken against him and to examine witnesses in his favour.
;


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