Case: Hind Construction &amp; Engineering Co. Ltd Vs. Their Workmen

when their dispute was taken over by the Union and though they were offered employment they would have been treated like the others unless they broke away from their Union or went against its wishes. In these circumstances, Government was entitled to treat the dispute as single and undivided and to refer the cases of all workmen who had absented themselves on the 2nd of January on the ground they claimed it as a holiday. We do not, therefore, interfere with the award on this ground:5. The next question is whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the punishment of dismissal after it had come to the conclusion that the workmen had gone on a strike even though the strike was not illegal. Reference is made to a number of cases in which the principles for the guidance of the Tribunals in which matters have been laid down by this Court. It is now settled law that the Tribunal is not to examine the finding or the quantum of punishment because the whole of the dispute is not really open before the Tribunal as it is ordinarily before a court of appeal. The Tribunals powers have been stated by this Court in a large number of cases and it has been ruled that the Tribunal can only interfere if the conduct of the employer shows lack of bona fides or victimization of employee or employees or unfair labour practice. The Tribunal may in a strong case interfere with a basic error on a point of fact or a perverse finding, but it cannot substitute its own appraisal of the evidence for that of the officer conducting the domestic enquiry though it may interfere where the principles of natural justice or fair play have not been followed or where the enquiry is so perverted in its procedure as to amount to no enquiry at all. In respect of punishment it has been ruled that the award of punishment for misconduct under the Standing Orders, if any, is a matter for the management to decide and if there is any justification for the punishment imposed the Tribunal should not interfere. The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of the punishment or whether it is excessive or too severe. But where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, regard being had to the particular conduct and the past record or is such, as no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstances, the Tribunal may treat the imposition of such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair labour practice. These principles can be gathered from the following cases:-Bengal Bhatdee Coal Co. Ltd. v.Ram Probesh Singh, AIR 1964 SC 486 ; Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workers, 1952 Lab AC 490 (LATI-Cal); Titaghar Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Kumar, (1961) 1 Lab LJ 511 (SC);- Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. v. Assam Chah Karmachari Sangh, 1960-2 Lab LJ 56 (SC); Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1959-2 Lab LJ 666 : (AIR 1960 SC 160 ); Chartered Bank Bombay v. Chartered Bank Employees Union, 1960-2 Lab LJ 222 (AIR 1960 SC 919 ).6. In the present case the dispute was whether the punishment amounted to victimization or unfair labour practice. Mr. Sen Gupta referred to various parts of the record of the enquiry to show that the conduct of the workmen was regarded as collective, that it was described as a strike, that it was considered to be the result of a conspiracy and that there was a demand for over-time. Mr. Sen Gupota contended that, in the circumstances, this must be regarded as a case of victimization because only the permanent workers were subjected to this treatment. Mr. Sen Gupta hinted that there was an ulterior motive in dismissing the permanent workers and getting the work done by temporary hands so that the Union may break down and even the re-employment of three workmen, who were probably indispensable to the employer, was with the same motive. On the other hand, Mr. Setalvad argued that there was nothing on the record to show that this was a case of victimization. These persons were found guilty at the enquiry and also by the Tribunal and it was merely a question of what punishment should be imposed and that was a matter entirely within the competence of the employer.7. In our judgment, this is one of those cases in which it can plainly be said that the punishment imposed was one which no reasonable employer would have imposed in like circumstances unless it served same other purpose. There was a practice of substituting for a holiday falling on a Sunday, the day next following. This appears to have been done in the appellant Company for a number of years. In this year also the 2nd of January would have been a holiday but for the contrary decision of the Management. From the record it does not appear that there was anything very special requiring attention on the day. But assuming there was, the absence of the eleven workmen on the 2nd was not something for which no lesser punishment could have been imposed. The absence could have been treated as leave without pay; the workmen might even have been warned and fined. It is impossible to think that any other reasonable employer would have imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal on its entire permanent staff in this manner. Assuming for a moment, that three workmen were warned and taken back, the employer knew very well that they could not join in view of the intervention of the Union. On the whole, therefore, though we emphasise again that a Tribunal should not interfere with the kind or severity of punishment except in very extraordinary circumstances, we think that interference was justified in this case because the punishment was not only severe and out of proportion to the fault, but one which, in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have imposed.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Technically this is correct but we do not think that we should interfere with the award on this ground alone. All workmen were charged together and their defence more or less was that the day following the 1st of January was to be a holiday in accordance with the established practice, though three of them raised additional defence when asked to file separate defences. It is obvious that these three workmen could not join when their dispute was taken over by the Union and though they were offered employment they would have been treated like the others unless they broke away from their Union or went against its wishes. In these circumstances, Government was entitled to treat the dispute as single and undivided and to refer the cases of all workmen who had absented themselves on the 2nd of January on the ground they claimed it as a holiday. We do not, therefore, interfere with the award on thisis now settled law that the Tribunal is not to examine the finding or the quantum of punishment because the whole of the dispute is not really open before the Tribunal as it is ordinarily before a court ofrespect of punishment it has been ruled that the award of punishment for misconduct under the Standing Orders, if any, is a matter for the management to decide and if there is any justification for the punishment imposed the Tribunal should not interfere. The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of the punishment or whether it is excessive or tooIn our judgment, this is one of those cases in which it can plainly be said that the punishment imposed was one which no reasonable employer would have imposed in like circumstances unless it served same other purpose. There was a practice of substituting for a holiday falling on a Sunday, the day next following. This appears to have been done in the appellant Company for a number of years. In this year also the 2nd of January would have been a holiday but for the contrary decision of the Management. From the record it does not appear that there was anything very special requiring attention on the day. But assuming there was, the absence of the eleven workmen on the 2nd was not something for which no lesser punishment could have been imposed. The absence could have been treated as leave without pay; the workmen might even have been warned and fined. It is impossible to think that any other reasonable employer would have imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal on its entire permanent staff in this manner. Assuming for a moment, that three workmen were warned and taken back, the employer knew very well that they could not join in view of the intervention of the Union. On the whole, therefore, though we emphasise again that a Tribunal should not interfere with the kind or severity of punishment except in very extraordinary circumstances, we think that interference was justified in this case because the punishment was not only severe and out of proportion to the fault, but one which, in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have imposed.