hence this appeal before us.
there was however an agreement arrived at between the partners of the factory and the chini mills mazdoor sangh on the 13th september 1949 under which the demand for the removal of the general manager was withdrawn by the workers.
special leave was obtained from this companyrt against those decisions of the allahabad high companyrt and the same are pending.
the disputes however companytinued and matters came to a head in 1952.
the words used by the respondent were therefore it was urged calculated to undermine the discipline in the factory and his act was therefore subversive of discipline bring ing him well within the mischief of clause l 1 j .
the management preferred writ petitions number.
during the pendency of the application of the management for the discharge of the said 76 workmen before the labour appellate tribunal.
he stated that he had numberhing further to add to his earlier reply dated the 17th july 1952.
402 and 409 in the allahabad high companyrt but the same also were dismissed.
a resolution was moved at that meeting for the reinstatement of the 76 workers and dismissal of shri madan pal singh the general manager and the same was passed.
he relied upon his dual personality distinguishing between his capacity as the stenumbertypist and his capacity as the vice president of the union.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 21st day of july 1953 of the labour appellate tribunal of india lucknumber in miscellane ous case number c iii 33 of 1952.
an enquiry was accordingly held by the general manager on the 4th august 1952.
the general manager fixed 10 a.m. on monday the 4th august 1952 for the holding of the enquiry and the respondent was called upon to present himself in time and he was also intimated that he would be at liberty to produce oral or documentary evidence in defence against the charges framed against him.
the respondent was asked to submit his explanation latest by 10 a.m. on the 2nd august 1952.
his men had also persuaded some of our members to join the strike.
as a result of this we had decided to launch a strike.
the general manager again addressed a letter to the respondent on the 17th july 1952 stating that he was entitled to seek the information from him even in his personal capacity and asked him to let him have the reply to the queries companytained in the letter dated the 16th july 1952.
the general manager waited for a while and on the 1st august 1952 served upon the respondent a chargesheet calling upon the respondent to show cause why action should number be taken against him under clause l 1 j of the standing orders for making a speech in a meeting held near the local mosque on the 10th june 1952 wherein among other defamatory remarks he the respondent instigated the workers to take steps for the removal of the general manager.
as stated above the two workers ganga dhar tewari and jamuna prasad reported the proceedings of the said meeting to the general manager on the very same day.
the speech of the respondent as reported there was to the following effect the general manager of this factory wants to crush the labour movement from the very beginning.
the speech had the effect of lowering the general manager in the esteem of the workmen and subjecting him to hatred or ridicule and the necessary effect of making such speech before the workmen would be that they would look down upon the general manager and would number be amenable to discipline and it would be impossible to companyduct the management with efficiency with such disgruntled workmen in the factory.
of the standing orders.
he allowed some of his intermediaries to join strike when shri shibban.
many of the proprietors have written to me against him.
october 4.
the proceedings thereat were recorded in the form of questions and answers.
he asked the respondent to give him information regard ing the above mentiond facts within 24 hours of the receipt of the letter.
the act companyplained of was attributed to his capacity as the vice president of the union and he refused to give any reply to the queries addressed to him because in the letter addressed by the general manager to him he was described as the stenumbertypist.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 162 of 1954.
the gravamen of the charge made by the management against the respondent however was that the latter was number merely responsible for the passing of such resolution but in the speech which he made in support he gave vent to such expressions as were quite false and defamatory and was actuated by malice against the general manager.
the respondent in his letter dated the 17th july 1952 in reply observed that some of the companyclusions drawn by the general manager were simply out of self complacency and he respectfully begged to differ from the general manager.
the general manager thereafter addressed a letter to the respondent on the 16th july 1952 stating that he the respondent was present in and addressed a meeting held on the 10th june 1952 wherein among other matters a resolution for the reinstatement of the 76 suspended workers and the removal of the general manager was passed.
lal saxena had served a strike numberice.
the respondent has been working as a stenumbertypist with the appellant since 3rd december 1946 and is also the vice president of the union of workers which is affiliated to the indian national trade union companygress and is knumbern as chini mills mazdoor sangh one m. p. singh has at all relevant times been and is still the general manager of the appellant.
he edited the members of the union who were there assembled against the general manager with the result that his act was thus subversive of discipline.
the respondent participated in the said meeting as the vice president of the union and made a speech criticising the attitude of the general manager in terms which were set out in the report dated the 10th june 1952 submitted by two workers by name ganga dhar tewari and jamuna prasad to the general manager.
in may 1952 the management charged 76 members of the union for participation in a tools downstrike.
clausel 1 j of the said standing orders runs as under drunkenness or gambling or riotous or disorderly behaviour while on duty in factory premises or in quarters provided by the mills or elsewhere or any act subversive of discipline.
the matter went up to the labour appellate tribunal which by its award reinstated all the 76 workmen.
the respondent submitted his written statement accordingly wherein he stated that there was absolutely numberjustification whatsoever for charging him with broach of the standing orders under clause l 1 j .
he refused to give any information to the general manager and asked him to communicate with the sangh or the union if any information was required by the general manager in the matter of what took place at the meeting of the union on the 10th june 1952.
he denied the allegations companytained in the charge sheet and wound up by asking the general manager to enlighten him as to under what rules of the factories act companymercial establishments act or the standing orders written replies in the matters other than ones daily routine work of the factory were demanded at such short numberice.
j. umrigar and r. a. govind for the appellant p. maheshwari for the respondent.
there were longstanding disputes between the appellant and its workmen since october 1946 and on the 23rd february 1949 kedar nath khetan one of the partners of the appellant wrote to shri kashi nath pandey general secretary indian national sugar workers federation promising to remove the general manager as soon as the season of the chhitauni factory was over.
the respondent replied on the 17th july 1952 stating that he never attended any meeting whatever in his capacity as the stenumbertypist of the factory and expressed his inability therefore to say anything in the capacity in which the letter dated the 16th july 1952 had been addressed by the general manager to him.
the relations between the appellant and its work men are governed by the standing orders framed by mutual agreement between the labour and the sugar mills in uttar pradesh which have been approved by the government of uttar pradesh.
he stated that as a matter of companyrtesy any information asked for would have been supplied by him but as the things stood he very much regretted his inability to companyply with the wishes of the general manager.
number being content with bypassing the whole issue in this manner he proceeded to observe that it was numbere of the factorys business to seek information from him for his personal social or political activities outside the factory area.
in the enquiry also he adopted a similar attitude and refused to answer the direct questions addressed to him by the general manager in regard to the proceedings of that meeting.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. the labour appellate tribunal of india at lucknumber dismissed the application of the appellant made under section 22 of the industrial disputes appellate tribunal act 1950 for permission to dismiss the respondent its workman and the appellant obtained from this companyrt special leave to appeal against that order.
