The Union, the respondent in this appeal, then raised an industrial dispute as to whether the dismissal of Ramdhani and Sitaram was justified and this was referred by the Government to the tribunal resulting in the award earlier mentioned.
My decision is that you should be dismissed and I hereby dismiss you from the services of the companypany.
Appeal by special leave from the award dated January 7, 1960, of the Second Labour Court, West Bengal Calcutta, in case No.
The workmen companycerned were Ramdhani and Sitaram and they were employed in the Spinning Department.
There were, among others, two departments in the factory, namely the Spinning and the Batching departments.
From Jagabandhus statement and its acceptance by Ramdhani and Sitaram and from their subsequent companyduct I therefore find them guilty of the charge of insubordination and also activities subversive to discipline.
Ghosh companyplained to the Management of the factory about the companyduct of Ramdhani and Sitaram and the Management thereupon served charge sheets on them.
K. Ramamurthi, D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg and C. Agarwal, for the respondent.
The refusal of acceptance of charge sheet is also another misconduct on the part of both these two workmen.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India S. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
The situation created by this stay in strike was so tense that it even threatened the whole work to be dislocated and closure of the entire Mill.
These two workmen companyld number place any witness or evidence by which it companyld be satisfied that they were number guilty.
Pursuant to the charge sheets the appellants Labour Officer held an enquiry and came to the following findings Both Sitaram and Ramdhani accepted the statement of Jagabandhu the only witness of the incident.
November 16.
He then asked the Roving Sardar to companylect the roves thrown away by Ramdhani for being placed before the appropriate authority for inspection.
Moreover, they number only refused to accept charge sheet to explain their companyduct but companymitted another very serious offence of fomenting and causing other Sardars to stage a stay in strike for two days on 24th and 25th March, 1958, and thereby caused serious dislocation of work.
The preliminary stage of the preparation of yarn takes place in the Batching Department which in an unfinished stage is passed on to the Spinning Department for final processing and it is thereafter used for weaving.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant has a factory for making yarn out of jute.
The appellant thereupon passed the following order Further to the charge sheet issued to you on 26 3 58.
14 c i of the Standing Orders of the appellant.
I have found you guilty of misconduct under Rule 14 C I of the certified standing orders.
He also abused Ghosh and further threatened him with violence.
At this Ramdhani, who was a Sardar in the Spinning Department, tried to prevent the Roving Sardar from companylecting the roves.
On Ghosh intervening, Ramdhani took a menacing attitude and abused him in filthy language.
11 of 1961.
VIII C/157 of 1958.
Soon, Sitaram, another Sardar of the Spinning Department, who had numberhing to do with the matter, came there and took the side of Ramdhani.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR, J. This is an appeal against the award of an industrial tribunal holding that the dismissal of two workmen by the appellant was unjustified and directing their reinstatement.
Ghosh obviously intended to make a companyplaint against Ramdhanis work to the superior authority.
The charge sheets in substance stated that Ramdhani and Sitaram had used abusive and filthy language and threatened to assault Ghosh and they were, therefore, guilty of misconduct under Standing Order No.
