WORKMEN OF THE MOTIPUR SUGAR FACTORY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MOTIPUR SUGAR FACTORY PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar. It relates to the discharge of 119 workmen of the respondent who were employed as cane carrier mazdoors or as cane carrier supervisors or jamadars. All these were seasonal workmen. It is necessary to set out in some detail the circumstances leading to the discharge. The respondent is a sugar factory and the crushing season starts usually in the first half of November each year. We are concerned in the present appeal with November and December 1960. It appears that from the season 1956-57, the respondent introduced an incentive bonus scheme in the factory. The scheme continued thereafter from season to season with certain changes. It also appears that in the beginning of each season, the respondent used to put forward the incentive bonus scheme and consult the workmen. The same thing was done when the season 1960-61 was about to start in November 1960. But the scheme for this season proposed by the respondent contained certain changes which were apparently not acceptable to the workmen. One of the features in the scheme was that the crushing of sugar cane per day should be 32.000 maunds. The general secretary of the union of the workmen suggested certain alteration for the consideration of the respondent on November 7, 1960 and one of the main alternations suggested was that the norm for per day's crushing should be 25,000 maunds of cane and thereafter incentive bonus should be given at a certain rate. No agreement seems to have been reached on the incentive bonus scheme, and the complaint of the respondent was that the secretary incited the workmen to go-slow in consequence of the change in the scheme. Consequently mild go slow in the cane carrier department which is the basic department in a sugar mill began from the very start of the season on November 10, 1960. The respondent's case further was that on November 27, 1960, the workmen in the cane carrier department started in combination with one another to go-slow deliberately and wilfully and in a planned manner and thus reduced the average daily crushing to 26,000 maunds cane which was much less than the average crushing in previous seasons. This conduct of the workmen was said to be highly prejudicial to the respondent and besides being technically unsafe, had brought into existence an acute shortage in the fuel position which might have resulted in the complete stoppage of the mill and major breakdown of the machinery. When the position became serious the respondent issued a general notice on December 15, 1960 inviting the attention of the workmen concerned to this state of affairs which had been continuing at any rate since November 27, 1960. This notice was in the following terms:

(2.) This notice was put on the noticeboard along with translations in Hindi and Urdu and it was also sent individually to the workmen in the cane carrier department. A copy was also sent to the secretary of the union with a request to re-consider his stand and advise the workmen concerned to submit their willingness as desired by the respondent in the notice in question either individually or even collectively through the union. The secretary of the union replied to this notice on the same day and said that it was "full of maliciously false and mischievous statements."

(3.) It may be mentioned that the respondent had held no enquiry as required by the Standing Orders before dispensing with the services of the workmen concerned. Therefore, when the matter went before the tribunal the question that was tried was whether there was go-slow between November 27, 1960 and December 15, 1960. The respondent led evidence, which was mainly documentary and based on the past performance of the factory to show that there was in fact go-slow by the workmen concerned during this period. The appellants on the other hand also relying on the record of the respondent tried to prove that the cane carrier department had been giving normal work in accordance with what had happened in the past in connection with cane crushing. That is how the tribunal considered the question on the basis of the relevant statistics supplied by both parties and also evidence whether there was go-slow during this period or not. After considering all the evidence it came to the conclusion that there was go-slow during this period. Consequently it held that the discharge of the workmen was fully justified. It therefore answered the first question referred to it in favour of the respondent. The second question with respect to wages for the strike period was not pressed on behalf of the appellants and was therefore decided against them. Thereafter the appellants came to this Court and obtained special leave; and that is how the matter has come up before us.