Case: Patna Electric Supply Co., Ltd., Patna Vs. Bali Rai &amp; Another

of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, the respondents had a right of appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. 7. It is necessary, therefore, to appreciate what was sought to be done by the appellant when it made the application before the Industrial Tribunal on 6-12-1952. This application has been described by the Labour Appellate Tribunal as an application for amendment of the original application which had been filed by the appellant on 21-12-1952, for permission to dismiss the respondents from its employ as per Cl. 17 (b) (viii) of the Standing Orders. It must be noted, however, that what the appellant purported to do by its application of 6-12-1952, was, in effect, to substitute another application asking for permission to discharge the respondents from its employ under Cl. 14 (a) of the Standing Orders, thus abandoning the relief which it had prayed for in the original application. The application dated 6-12-1952, was thus, in substance, a new application made by the appellant to the Industrial Tribunal, no doubt relying upon the facts and circumstances which were set out in the original application but asking for the permission of the Industrial Tribunal to discharge the respondents from its employ under Cl. 14 (a) of the Standing Orders instead of dismissing them from its employ under Cl. 17 (b) (viii) thereof. We do not see how it was not competent to the Industrial Tribunal to allow the appellant to do so. If the appellant had been actuated by any oblique motives and wanted to evade the consequences of its not having held a proper enquiry after submitting a charge-sheet to the respondents one could have understood the criticism made by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in regard to the same. The Industrial Tribunal, however, expressly recorded the finding that the application for leave to discharge the respondents from its employ was bona fide and what the appellant did by making the application dated 6-12-1952, was actuated by an honest motive of exercising its right to discharge the respondents under Cl. 14 (a) of the Standing Orders instead of visiting upon the respondents the penalty of dismissing them from its employ under clause 17 (b) (viii), thereof.The discharge of the respondents was a discharge simpliciter in exercise of the rights of the employer under Cl. 14 (a) of the Standing Orders and was not a punitive discharge under Cl. 17 (b) (viii) thereof and if it was merely a discharge simpliciter, then, no objection could be taken to the same and the appellant would be well within its rights to do so, provided, however, that it was not arbitrary or capricious but was bona fide. 8. The only question relevant to be considered by the Industrial Tribunal would be that in taking the step which it did the appellant was not guilty of any unfair labour practice or victimization. If the Industrial Tribunal did not come to a conclusion adverse to the appellant on these counts, it would have no jurisdiction to refuse the permission asked for by the appellant. Once the Industrial Tribunal was of opinion that the application dated 6-12-1952, and the discharge of the respondents for which the permission of the Industrial Tribunal was sought were in the honest exercise of the appellants rights, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, could arise in the appeal filed by the respondents against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal was clearly in error when it entertained the appeal. 9. In view of the above finding, we do not propose to deal with the contention that the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal u/s. 33 of the Act is not a "decision" within the meaning of that term in S. 7 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. 10. The argument that the discharge of the respondents though patently it was a discharge simpliciter was, in substance, retrenchment within the meaning of the definition contained in S. 2 (oo) of the Act is equally untenable, for the simple reason that the term "retrenchment" was for the first time defined in the manner in which it has been done by an Ordinance promulgated in October 1953 which was followed by Act 43 of 1953 which was published in the Gazette of India on 23-12-1953. The Industrial Tribunal made its order granting the permission under S. 33 of the Act on 14-5-1953, so that, this definition of the term "retrenchment" could not apply to the facts of the present case. If, therefore, at the relevant period the discharge simpliciter could not be deemed to be retrenchment of the respondents by the appellant, the decision of the Industrial Tribunal could not be said to be one in respect of any of the matters specified in sub-s. (1) (b) of S. 7 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. In that view also no appeal could lie from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. 11. It must be observed that neither of these two points was taken by the respondents either in the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Appellate Tribunal nor was either of them mentioned in the statement of case filed by the respondents in this Court. They were taken for the first time in the arguments advanced before us by Shri P. K. Chatterjee. We have, however, dealt with the same because we thought that we should not deprive the respondents of the benefit of any argument which could possibly be advanced in their favour. 12. We are, therefore, of opinion that no appeal lay from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order made by the Industrial Tribunal granting the appellant permission to discharge the respondents under S. 33 of the Act and that the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 13.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]If the appellant had been actuated by any oblique motives and wanted to evade the consequences of its not having held a proper enquiry after submitting a charge-sheet to the respondents one could have understood the criticism made by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in regard to the same. The Industrial Tribunal, however, expressly recorded the finding that the application for leave to discharge the respondents from its employ was bona fide and what the appellant did by making the application dated 6-12-1952, was actuated by an honest motive of exercising its right to discharge the respondents under Cl. 14 (a) of the Standing Orders instead of visiting upon the respondents the penalty of dismissing them from its employ under clause 17 (b) (viii), thereof.The discharge of the respondents was a discharge simpliciter in exercise of the rights of the employer under Cl. 14 (a) of the Standing Orders and was not a punitive discharge under Cl. 17 (b) (viii) thereof and if it was merely a discharge simpliciter, then, no objection could be taken to the same and the appellant would be well within its rights to do so, provided, however, that it was not arbitrary or capricious but was bona fide.The only question relevant to be considered by the Industrial Tribunal would be that in taking the step which it did the appellant was not guilty of any unfair labour practice or victimization. If the Industrial Tribunal did not come to a conclusion adverse to the appellant on these counts, it would have no jurisdiction to refuse the permission asked for by the appellant. Once the Industrial Tribunal was of opinion that the application dated 6-12-1952, and the discharge of the respondents for which the permission of the Industrial Tribunal was sought were in the honest exercise of the appellants rights, no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, could arise in the appeal filed by the respondents against the decision of the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal was clearly in error when it entertained the appealThe argument that the discharge of the respondents though patently it was a discharge simpliciter was, in substance, retrenchment within the meaning of the definition contained in S. 2 (oo) of the Act is equally untenable, for the simple reason that the term "retrenchment" was for the first time defined in the manner in which it has been done by an Ordinance promulgated in October 1953 which was followed by Act 43 of 1953 which was published in the Gazette of India on 23-12-1953. The Industrial Tribunal made its order granting the permission under S. 33 of the Act on 14-5-1953, so that, this definition of the term "retrenchment" could not apply to the facts of the present case. If, therefore, at the relevant period the discharge simpliciter could not be deemed to be retrenchment of the respondents by the appellant, the decision of the Industrial Tribunal could not be said to be one in respect of any of the matters specified in sub-s. (1) (b) of S. 7 of the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950. In that view also no appeal could lie from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal. We are, therefore, of opinion that no appeal lay from the decision of the Industrial Tribunal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal, that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order made by the Industrial Tribunal granting the appellant permission to discharge the respondents under S. 33 of the Act and that the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside.