WORKMEN EMPLOYED IN B & C MILLS, MADRAS Vs. MANAGEMENT OF B & C MILLS, MADRAS
LAWS(SC)-1969-7-37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
July 31,1969
Workmen Employed In B And C Mills, Madras
Appellant
VERSUS
Management Of B And C Mills, Madras
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
S E MADURAI ELECY SYSTEM VS. V BALUSWAMY [LAWS(MAD)-1989-10-7] [REFERRED TO]M ANANTHA MUGERAYA VS. KARNATAKA LAND ARMY CORPORATION [LAWS(KAR)-2002-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
A . PRABHAKARAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-106] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF THANJAVUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AND [LAWS(MAD)-1998-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
BADRUDDIN (SUB INSPECTOR (S.I.)) VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-355] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. GIRDHAR SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. NARINDER CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-198] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI GOVERNMENT VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-5-198] [REFERRED TO]
SHRIPAD ANANT PURANIK VS. GENERAL MANAGER B E S AND T UNDERTAKING [LAWS(BOM)-2009-10-114] [REFERRED TO]
IRSHAD AHMED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2017-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
THANJAVUR TEXTILES LIMITED VS. B PURUSHOTHAM [LAWS(SC)-1999-3-71] [REFERRED]
R. SUBRAMANIAM VS. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS, LTD. BY K. RANGARAJAN, BRANCH MANAGER, MADRAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-1988-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MOHD NASEEM SIDDIQUI [LAWS(MPH)-2004-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
TITAGARH JUTE FACTORY CO. LIMITED VS. SRIRAM TIWARI [LAWS(CAL)-1979-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
LOCHAN SINGH VS. HARYANA ROADWAYS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-10-60] [REFERRED TO]
BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. JAGNARAYAN M KAHAR [LAWS(BOM)-2000-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
HEMA RITESH THAKKER & OTHERS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH REGISTRAR [LAWS(GJH)-2016-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
VISWANATHA RAO B VS. MANAGEMENT OF CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE [LAWS(KAR)-2004-10-14] [REFERRED TO]
MULCHANDANI ELECTRICAL AND RADIO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1975-1-29] [RELIED ON]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. KRISHNA KANT [LAWS(SC)-1995-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
LAMBHA V K S S MANDALI LTD VS. DISTRICT REGISTRAR CO OP SOCIETIES RURAL AHMEDABAD [LAWS(GJH)-1972-10-12] [REFERRED]
RAMESH CHAND VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-235] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT VS. KISHORI LAL [LAWS(DLH)-2013-2-264] [REFERRED TO]
MICO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1986-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
THANJAVUR TEXTILES LIMITED VS. B PURUSHOTHAM [LAWS(SC)-1999-5-19] [REFERRED]
PALLAVAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION METRO MADRAS-2 VS. PRESIDING OFFICER I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-1984-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
P KASILINGAM VS. BHARATHIAR UNIVERSITY [LAWS(MAD)-1989-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
S.KRISHNA MURTHY VS. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-45] [REFERRED TO]
FGP LIMITED MUMBAI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT III [LAWS(APH)-2005-11-82] [REFERRED TO]
C I POULOSE VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(KER)-1996-2-74] [REFERRED TO]
SOMARAJAN VS. MANAGEMENT OF A R C ENGINEERING WORKS [LAWS(MAD)-1980-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
SURRENDER KUMAR VS. UOI & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-253] [REFERRED TO]
STATE TRANSPORT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. SHANKAR GOPAL PAGIRE [LAWS(BOM)-2004-8-142] [REFERRED TO]
M RAMA WARRIER VS. COIR BOARD [LAWS(KER)-1988-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
DTC VS. HANUMANT KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-355] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN PSSK VS. PEESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT MANDYA [LAWS(KAR)-1974-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
MICO EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1982-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
DR. V. ANANDAMOORTHI VS. GOVT. OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-1998-9-162] [REFERRED TO]
H RAJENDRA PAI VS. CHAIRMAN CANARA BANK [LAWS(KER)-1988-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR CHANDRA SARKAR VS. TATA IRON AND STEEL COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1984-3-13] [RELIED ON]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K. SURI BABU [LAWS(SC)-2023-11-57] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Vaidialingam, J. -
(1.)This appeal, by special leave by the workman employed in B & C Mills, Madars, is directed against the award, dated February 24, 1968 of the Labour Court, Madras. The dispute that was referred for adjudication related to the legality of the order passed by the management dismissing a worker, Loganathan, from service. The worker Loganathan was employed as a clerk in the Preparation Department of the respondent Mills. A charge-sheet, Exhibit M-7, was issued on October 18, 1965 alleging that the worker had committed certain acts which amounted to misconduct under standing Order 13 (d) and though he was liable for summary dismissal, the management was giving him an opportunity to state his defence to the charges. As the actual findings recorded on merits against the workmen are not canvassed before us, it is not necessary to refer to the nature of the allegations contained in the charges.
(2.)The workman submitted an explanation, Exhibit M-8, on October 20, 1965 denying allegations. The Senior Labour Officer of the management recorded the evidence of the managements witnesses and also the statements of the worker and submitted the proceedings to the Mill Manager. The record of the proceedings before the Senior Labour Officer is Exhibit M-9. The Mill Manager, after scrutinising the proceedings of the enquiry and after getting the further explanations of the worker, passed an order. Exhibit M-10, on November 4, 1965 holding "the worker guilty of the charges dismissing him from service. The dismissal of the worker led to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court concerned, by the State of Madras.
(3.)Before the Labour Court, the Union contended that the entire enquiry proceedings were illegal and void as they had been conducted by the Senior Labour Officer who had no authority. According to the Union, under Standing Order 14, it is only the Mill Manager who is competent to conduct the enquiry. The Union further contended that even assuming that the Senior Labour Officer had jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry, he had not recorded any findings as to the guilt or otherwise of the workman. On the other hand, it was the Mill Manager, who passed the order of dismissal after recording the findings. According to the Union this was really a case of one authority conducting an enquiry and another authority recording its findings and taking disciplinary action against the workman and, as such, the entire proceedings were contrary to the principles of natural justice. Even to the findings recorded by the Mill Manager objections were taken on the ground that they were not supported by the evidence recorded in the case. A further objection was taken that the Senior Labour Officer had really acted both as a Judge and as a Prosecutor in as much as he had very severely cross-examined the workman and this was also not permissible under law.
(2.)The workman submitted an explanation, Exhibit M-8, on October 20, 1965 denying allegations. The Senior Labour Officer of the management recorded the evidence of the managements witnesses and also the statements of the worker and submitted the proceedings to the Mill Manager. The record of the proceedings before the Senior Labour Officer is Exhibit M-9. The Mill Manager, after scrutinising the proceedings of the enquiry and after getting the further explanations of the worker, passed an order. Exhibit M-10, on November 4, 1965 holding "the worker guilty of the charges dismissing him from service. The dismissal of the worker led to an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court concerned, by the State of Madras.
(3.)Before the Labour Court, the Union contended that the entire enquiry proceedings were illegal and void as they had been conducted by the Senior Labour Officer who had no authority. According to the Union, under Standing Order 14, it is only the Mill Manager who is competent to conduct the enquiry. The Union further contended that even assuming that the Senior Labour Officer had jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry, he had not recorded any findings as to the guilt or otherwise of the workman. On the other hand, it was the Mill Manager, who passed the order of dismissal after recording the findings. According to the Union this was really a case of one authority conducting an enquiry and another authority recording its findings and taking disciplinary action against the workman and, as such, the entire proceedings were contrary to the principles of natural justice. Even to the findings recorded by the Mill Manager objections were taken on the ground that they were not supported by the evidence recorded in the case. A further objection was taken that the Senior Labour Officer had really acted both as a Judge and as a Prosecutor in as much as he had very severely cross-examined the workman and this was also not permissible under law.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.