145 of 1955 respectively, arising out of an Award dated September 22, 1952, of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, and published in the Bihar State Government Gazette on October 21, 1952.
When the matter came up for hearing before the Appellate Tribunal, the workmen withdrew their appeal with respect to their application under s. 33 A and it was companysequently dismissed.
The Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that the companytention of the management on both these points was companyrect and that the appeal involved substantial questions of law.
It also held that the Industrial Tribunal was number right in relying upon the recommendations of the Go Slow Committee and the companytemplated Standing Orders which were number till then in force.
In effect, therefore, it rejected the prayer of the management for dismissal with respect to these thirty two workmen also.
The three applications were tried together by the Industrial Tribunal and the companytentions raised before it were these The managements applications under s. 33 had number been preceded by any enquiry into the misconduct of the workmen and were, therefore, liable to be rejected The order of suspension in this case amounted to punishment and therefore s. 33 had been companytraven ed and There was an unjustified go slow by the workmen in January and February 1952.
It therefore refused the application under s. 33 with respect to these sixteen workmen.
The Labour Commissioner then ordered the Labour Officer to tell the workmen that numberfurther companyciliation proceedings would take place until the goslow was called of.
As adjudication proceedings were pending since September 1951 between the management and its workmen, the former applied on February 6, 1952, under s. 33 of the Act for permission to dismiss the thirty three workmen and on February 11, 1952, for permission to dismiss the remaining fifteen workmen who had been suspended later.
As to the appeal by the management with respect to the applications under s. 33, it was companytended on its behalf before the Appellate Tribunal that the Industrial Tribunal had gone wrong on two substantial questions of law, namely 1 the Industrial Tribunal companyld either grant or refuse permission to dismiss on an application for such permission under s. 33 and it companyld number substitute its own judgment about the quantum of punishment and 2 it was wrong in rejecting the applications against sixteen workmen on the ground that there was numberevidence.
Conciliation proceedings then began on January 17 and an agreement was arrived at as to some of the demands on January 23, and it was decided that further companyciliation proceedings would be held in February.
On January 8, the Deputy Labour Commissioner wrote to the union that as the companyciliation officer was busy in the general elections, the status quo should be maintained till the elections were over, so that the matter might be looked into by the companyciliation officer.
In the meantime, the Labour Officer had arrived at the factory on January 28, 1952, and further talks took place.
Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated June 3, 1955, and May 21, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeal No.
The workmen, however, did number pay heed to the advice of the Labour Officer.
As to the remaining thirtytwo workmen it held that as some Standing Orders which were under companytemplation at the time provided either dismissal or suspension for seven days in case of misconduct, it was proper to grant leave to the management to suspend the workmen for seven days, in view of some opinion expressed by a Go Slow Committee appointed some time before by the Bihar Central Standing Labour Advisory Board.
The forty eight workmen in their turn applied on March 29, 1952, under s. 33 A of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal and their case was that they had been suspended as a measure of punishment and that as this was done without the sanction of the Industrial Tribunal, the management had companymitted a breach of s. 33.
He, therefore, reported on January 31 to the Labour Commissioner that go slow was still companytinuing.
It held that in the present case, the suspension of the workmen by the management was substantive punishment, because the numberice did number in so many words state that it was pending enquiry and therefore the applications for permission having been made after punishment had been meted out were mala fide.
The union, however, gave numberheed to this advice and go slow began from January 9 and was companytinued till January 12, 1952.
Then the Labour Commissioner himself came to the factory on January 12 and advised Shams ud din who was the s moving spirit behind all this to call off the go slow, as it was proposed to start companyciliation proceedings at Patna on January 17, 1952.
There was peace for some time after this.
It was said in the numberice that these thirty three workmen had been found taking a leading part in the unjustified go slow which was in companytravention of the Act and they were therefore suspended from service until further orders.
Consequently, the management suspended thirty three workmen by a numberice given on the night of January 31 as from February 1.
This numberice was received by the management on January 4, which immediately companytacted the officers of the Labour Department as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate at Gopalganj.
The factory was established in 1932.
The Labour Officer then informed the management that it companyld take disciplinary action against the workmen companycerned with the permission of the Industrial Tribunal.
Consequently, the management suspended seven more workmen from February 6 and eight more from February 7 by giving numberice to them in the same terms in which the numberice had been given to the thirty three workmen, on January 31.
In June 1942, a trade union was formed in this factory.
In July 1943, trouble arose between the workmen and the management resulting in the discharge of three office bearers of the union, including one Shams ud din, who was then the joint secretary.
Finally, it rejected the application under s. 33 A. This award led to two appeals before the Labour Appellate Tribunal one was by the management against the entire award so far as it related to its applications under s. 33, and the other by the workmen against the dismissal of their application under s. 33 A and against the award relating to the applications of the management under s. 33.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The respondent did number appear.
This numberice had some good effect and work improved for four days but from February 5 goslow was started again.
746 and 747 of 1957.
It then went on to say that go slow was insidious in nature and companyld number be companyntenanced, and that it was serious misconduct numbermal punishment for which was dismissal.
This dispute was again referred to an Industrial Tribunal, which again ordered reinstatement of the dismissed workmen in August 1947.
Case No.
The facts of the case are briefly these The appellant, Messrs. Sasa Musa Sugar Works Private Ltd. is a sugar factory in District Saran Bihar .
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India and C. Prasad, for the appellant.
April 29.
366/52 and Misc.
That matter ,as referred to adjudication and the discharged workmen were ordered to be reinstated in the beginning of 1944.
But in spite of this agreement go slow was again resorted to from January 24 to January 31.
In companying to this companyclusion, the Appellate Tribunal seems to have forgotten that it had already dismissed the appeal of the workmen from the order of the Industrial Tribunal on their application under s. 33 A, which in effect amounted to companyfirming the order of the Industrial Tribunal that the suspension was number a punishment but was rightly made pending enquiry by the management and proceedings before the tribunal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. These are two appeals by the management by special leave in an industrial matter arising out of two applications under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act hereinafter called the Act .
In December 1944, there was trouble again and a large number of workmen were dismissed, including Shams ud din, who had by number become the president of the union.
It also found that the Industrial Tribunals finding that the workmen had resorted to go slow was number perverse and companyld be the only finding on the evidence.
