Summary
The appellant suspended 1600 workmen as they retorted to go slow and illegal strikes. On December 23, 1957, an 810
agreement was arrived at between the workers Union and the management under which the workmen resumed work. Clause 7 of the agreement provided that the suspended workmen shall not be entitled to any wages or compensation for the suspension period. Clause 9 provided that 29 of the workmen shall remain suspended pending inquiry and disciplinary action by the management. The management did not hold any inquiry and had the matter referred for adjudication. With respect to another 5 workmen, the management held an inquiry on various charges and 'dismissed them. In the inquiry, the management did not examine their witnesses but had their previous statements read out, and without giving copies of those statements to the workmen. asked them to cross. examine the witnesses. The dispute arising out of the dis- missal of these 5 workmen was also referred to adjudication.With respect to the 29 workmen the Tribunal permitted the dismissal of 9 and ordered reinstatement of the remaining and awarded 12 months' wages to the dismissed workmen and 15 months' wages to the reinstated workmen for the period during which they remained suspended. With respect to the 5 workmen dismissed the Tribunal held that the inquiry was not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice but that the evidence produced before the Tribunal,justified the dismissal of 4 of the workmen. The appellant contended that in view of cl. 7 of the agreement none of the 29 workmen were entitled to any compensation or wages for the period of suspension and that the inquiry with respect to the 5 workmen was in accordance with principles of natural justice. The workmen contended that all the 29 workmen were entitled to full wages for the period of suspension.Held that cl. 7 of the agreement referred to the period of suspension up to the date of the agreement and not to the suspension thereafter. Ordinarily, the law is that a workman may be suspended pending inquiry and disciplinary action; and if after the inquiry he is dismissed he is not entitled to any wages for the suspension period, but if he is reinstated lie is entitled to full wages for the period of suspension. Clause (9) envisaged suspension pending inquiry and also envisaged the legal consequences. The Tribunal was accordingly justified in awarding wages for the suspension period subsequent to the date of the agreement.The Straw Board Mfg. Co. v. Govind, [1962] Supp. 3 S. C. R.6I8 referred to.Held, further that all the 29 suspended workmen were entitled to full wages from the date of the agreement up to the 811date of the award. There was no provision in the standing orders., nor was there any term of service, which entitled the management to suspend a workman without payment of wages. In these circumstances there was no justification for depriving the workmen who had been ordered to be re- instated and to whom the Tribunal had awarded 15 months wages for any period of their suspension. The 9 workmen who had been allowed to be dismissed were also entitled to full wages for the entire period of suspension. Under cl. (9) of the agreement they were to remain suspended pending inquiry and disciplinary action, but the management held no inquiry and took no disciplinary action, but applied for the dispute to be referred to adjudication. As the management wanted to dismiss these workmen without holding an inquiry, the workmen were entitled to their full wages up to the date of the enforcement of the award.The Management of Hotel Imperial New Delhi v. Hotel Workers'Union, [1960] 1 S. C. R. 476 and M/s. Sasa Musa Sugar Works, (P) Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan, [1959] Supp. 2 S. C. R.836, releid on.Held further, that the inquiry with respect to the five workmen violated principles of natural justice. The rules of natural justice do not change from tribunal to tribunal;but since their purpose is to safeguard the position of the person against whom an inquiry is being conducted so as to enable him to meet the charges against him, the nature of the inquiry and the status of the person charged will have a bearing on what should be the minimum requirements of the rules of natural justice. In a domestic inquiry in an industrial matter the proper course for the management is to examine the witnesses from beginning to end in the presence of the workman at the inquiry itself. In exceptional cases, a witness may be asked merely to confirm his previously recorded statement and then tendered for cross-examination by the workman, but in such cases the previous prepared statement of the witness should be given to the workman well in advance before the inquiry begins at least two days before.The Union of India v. T. R. Verma, [1958] S. C. R. 499, State of Mysore v. S. S. Makapur, [1963] 2 S. C. R. 943, and New Prakash Transport Co. v. New Suwarna Transport Co.[1957] S. C. R. 98, referred to.See the full content of this document
Extract
M/s. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. VS. Gangadhar And Others
PETITIONER: M/s. KESORAM COTTON MILLS LTD.Vs.RESPONDENT: GANGADHAR AND OTHERSDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/04/1963BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N.BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N.GUPTA, K.C. DASCITATION: 1964 AIR 708 1964 SCR (2) 809CITATOR INFO : R 1964 SC 719 (8)R 1969 SC 983 (9,10)D 1972 SC1579 (3)ACT: Industrial Dispute-Go slow and strike-Agreement Suspension of Workmen pending inquiry-No inquiry held-Reference to adjudication-If workmen entitled to wages for period of suspension-Inquiry-Natural Justice-No examination-in-chief of witnesses-Previous Statement read Copy of statement not given to workmen-Propriety of procedure.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 425 and 426 of 1962.812M. C. Setalvad and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellants (in C. A. No. 425 of 1962) and the respondents (in C. A. No.426 of 1962).Y. Kumar, for the respondents (in C. A. No. 425 of 1962) and the appellants (in C.A. No. 426 of 1962).1963. April 4. The judgment of-the Court was delivered byWANCHOO J.-These are two appeals by special leave against the same award of the First Industrial Tribunal; West Bengal and will be dealt with together. Appeal No. 425 is by the employers and Appeal No. 426 is by the workmen. The employers will be referred to as the appellant throughout this judgment while the workmen will be referred to as the respondents. There was a dispute between the appellant and the respondents with respect to two matters, which were referred to the tribunal for adjudication by the Government of West Bengal in the following terms:- (1) To what relief the suspended workmen whose names are mentioned in list 'A' are entitled ?(2) Whether the termination of employment of the workmen whose names are mentioned in list'B' was justified ? Are they entitled to reinstatement and/or compensation ?List 'A' consisted of 29 workmen while list 'B' consisted of 12 workmen.The genesis of the dispute as to the suspended workmen was this according to the case of the 813appellant. The workmen of the weaving department of the appellant commenced slow down from October 28, 1957 in spite of the warning given by the appellant. On November 3, 1957, doffers of carding refused to work on new machines. The workmen of loose godown and folding section started slow down from October 27, 1957 and November 4, 1957 respectively. On November 23, 1957, the workmen of the spinning department adopted slow down tactics and indulged in other su...
See the full content of this document