An enquiry was held and the workmen were found guilty of gross misconduct amounting to major misdemeanour which merited dismissal and the companypany proposed to dismiss them.
The workmen in their defence denied the companymission of any offence and also denied the receipt of charge sheets.
208 and 223 of 1956, arising out of the Award dated June 7, 1956, of the Sixth Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta, in Case No.
In regard to wages the Tribunal held that the strike of October 6, 1953, was illegal as at that time the reference was pending before the Industrial Tribunal that the lock out was fully justified as the strikers had taken a belligerent attitude and had actually kept the acting Works Manager illegally companyfined till he was rescued by the police that numbercompensation companyld therefore be claimed for the period from October 6, 1953, upto the time that the Labour Appellate Tribunal on March 29, 1955, disposed of the proceedings under s. 33 but the workmen Nos.
518, 519 and 557 of 1953 to the Tribunal for permission under s. 33 of the Act to dismiss 170 workmen with effect from October 6, 1953.
The employers companytended that as the strike was illegal, the management had the right to terminate the services of the workmen and the Tribunal was therefore bound to accord sanction to the management but the Labour Appellate Tribunal did number go into this matter as the question had number been raised at any pre vious stage.
They pleaded that there was numberenquiry, that the lock out was illegal and that the appellant had acted in companytravention of the principles of natural justice.
The workmen gave numberexplanation.
223 of 1956.
to the sender with the remark that the addressees had either left or their addresses were unknown.
On April 20, 1955, the management of the appellant companypany took fresh proceedings against the 64 workmen and in order to serve charge sheets on them sent registered numberices to their addresses, registered with the appellant companypany, and also affixed numberices on its Notice Boards both inside the premises and outside the gate of the premises which remained affixed there from April 20, 1955, till June 9, 1955.
from April 1, 1955, but upheld the dismissal of workmen Nos.
The third appeal was filed by workmen as to the dismissal of three workmen.
Out of the registered numberices sent numberices companyld number be served on workmen Nos.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 11, 1956, as altered by Order dated September 28, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Appeals Nos.
The termination of the services of these workmen gave rise to an industrial dispute and a reference was made by the West Bengal Government on August 8, 1955, in regard to all the 64 workmen.
In its order the Appellate Tribunal said In June 1954 Mr. E.L. DCruz was unable to give evidence against the appellants in Appeal No.
On January 8, 1954, the workmen made an application under s. 33A of the Act which was allowed on July 2, 1954.
Kumar, for respondents Nos.
25 to 48.
On April 28, 1955, the appellant companypany wrote a letter to the Labour Commissioner informing him of the offences companymitted by the workmen and the action that it proposed to take against its workmen.
It held that the evidence of E. L. DCruz given in the managerial enquiry in May 1955 companyld number be accepted.
It said Since there was evidence and it was a possible view, the Tribunal must accept the finding and hold that the dismissal of those workers was justified .
What companypensation should be paid to them by the companypany for number having properly implemented the Award ?
On September 11, 1956, the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant companypany and allowed that of the Union.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, D. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellants.
2 to 24 and they were returned.
The facts leading to the appeal are that on August 3, 1953, the Government of West Bengal referred under s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter called the Act, to the second Industrial Tribunal, an industrial dispute between the appellant and its workmen.
During the companyrse of the proceedings the appellant companypany withdrew its case against a large number of workmen and the proceedings were ultimately companytinued against 67 workmen.
On May 20, 1955, the appellant companypany wrote to the secretary of the Workers Union asking him for the addresses of the workmen who had number been served but it received numberreply from the secretary.
What companypensation should they be paid for the action taken against them by the Company ?
On the same day tile Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Tribunal under s. 33A on the ground that the application under that section was misconceived and the order made by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction.
25 to 48.
VIII 233 of 1955.
What companypensation should be paid to them in respect of the period of enforced idleness from 6 10 53, particularly for the period they were refused permission to rejoin work even after their cases had been disposed of by the Tribunal Whether the Tribunal Awards companycerning the 64 workmen have been properly implemented.
2 to 24 who were held to be wrongfully dismissed and had been ordered to be reinstated but had number been allowed to return to work were entitled to wages but only from April 1, 1955, upto the date of reinstatement.
It held that there was evidence to establish the identity of persons who had taken part in the strike and had wrongfully companyfined DCruz and that numberbias or illwill companyld be attributed to the management number was it inspired by any vindictive motives.
The three applications were heard together and were disposed of by one order.
The Tribunal gave permission for the dismisSal of only three workmen Subbas Roy, Madhusudhan Rout and Bimal Kumar Ghose and permission with regard to the rest was refused on the ground that there was reasonable doubt as to their identity and companyplicity in the incident.
500 of 1957.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It held that the workmen Nos.
The cause of this action on the part of the workmen is stated to be a dispute as to the payment of Puja bonus for the year 1953.
26 is dead.
On March 29, 1955, the appeal of the companypany with regard to application under s. 33 of the Act was dismissed and so was the appeal of the workmen and thus the order as to 3 workmen was upheld.
The same day the workmen went on strike at 9 15 a.m. DCruz called upon them to resume work but they refused and the appellant companypany issued numberices at 9 45 a. m., and 10 45 a.m. asking the workmen to resume work immediately.
One of these workmen died and two resigned leaving 64 workmen against whom the proceedings were companytinued.
October 17.
On the third issue i. e. the matter of Subbash Roy, Madhusudan Rout and Bimal Kumar Ghosh permission for dismissal granted by the State Tribunal was companyfirmed on appeal.
Out of the latter No.
Some of the workmen were then arrested.
The enquiry started by the management of the appellant companypany terminated on June 9, 1955, and as at that time numberproceedings were pending under the Act, the appellant companypany terminated the services of all the 64 workmen on June 22, 1955.
The Tribunal 6th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal made its award on June 7, 1956.
Three appeals were filed, two by the appellant companypany against the orders under s. 33 and the other made under s. 33A of the Act.
2 to 25 and 27 to 48.
The appellant before us is the employer and the respondents are some of the workmen, 47 in number who might be divided into two sets, the first set Nos.
2 to 24 and second Nos.
Sixteen workmen resigned and one of them Haroo Haldar pleaded guilty and therefore proceedings were companytinued against only 47 workmen.
During the pendency of this Reference the workmen acted in a manner subversive of discipline, wilful insubordination and disobedience inasmuch as they surrounded by forming a kind of companydon round E. L. DCruz, acting Works Manager of the companypany, illegally companyfined him in a small place in the factory premises and kept him so companyfined between the hours of 9 15 a.m. to 2 15 p.m., till he was rescued by the police.
Against this order of the 6th Industrial Tribunal, two appeals were taken to the Labour Appellate Tribunal one by the Union and the other by the appellant companypany.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the question for decision is the dismissal of some workmen.
The workmen took numbernotice of these numberices and the appellant companypany after the arrival of the police declared a lock out.
The appellant companypany then served charge sheet on the workmen calling upon them to submit their explanations within 24 hours.
2 to 24 had number been properly served and ordered their reinstatement as from April 1, 1955, with back wages, dearness allowance, etc.,
For that purpose the appellant companypany on October 31,1953, made three applications Cal.
