Case: M/S. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. Gangadhar And Others

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 followingTo 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/orA consisted of 29 workmen while list B consisted of 12 workmen.2. The genesis of the dispute as to the suspended workmen was this according to the case of the appellant. 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 subversive activities and left their respective machines in groups rendering the work in backward and forward processes idle. As a result of this conduct of the workmen for a period of about four weeks, the appellant had toa large number of workmen without compensation. Then on December 3, 1957, the workmen of dye house and printing department, went on an illegalIn the first week of December, 1957, the workmen of blow room and carding went on strike. On December 9, the strike was commenced in the engineering department, cotton godown, bale godown canteen, high speed winding and old stores department. In the circumstances the appellant had to suspend 1600 workmen on charges of slowdown and various other charges. Thereafter negotiations were started between the union of the workmen and the management and an agreement was arrived at on December 23, 1957. The interpretation of some of the terms of the agreement is in dispute and we shall refer to them in due course. Suffice it to say here that by this agreement the workmen resumed work and undertook not to take recourse toactivities either individually or jointly and not to take recourse to illegal methods and means for the achievement of their demands or for getting their grievances redressed. It was also agreed that maintenance of discipline was of paramount importance and the workmen as also the union at all times wouldwith management in taking appropriate disciplinary action against the workmen for the maintenance of discipline in the factory. The agreement however provided that thirty workmen named in annexure A thereof would remain suspended pending inquiry and disciplinary action by the appellant. The first term of reference with respect to suspended workmen is about the thirty workmen who were to remain suspended under the terms of the agreement of December 23, 1957.3. The twelve workmen with which the second term of reference is concerned, were claimed by the appellant to have been guilty of various acts of misconduct for which they were liable to dismissal under the standing orders. They were dulyand inquiries were held against them and thereafter they were dismissed according to the provisions of law. As however the dismissals had taken place during the pendency of a dispute before the first industrial tribunal in which the appellant was a party, applications were made under S. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. No. 14 of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for approval of the action taken by the appellant in regard to these twelve workmen. It seems, however, that before these applications could be disposed of, the dispute before the tribunal was decided, with the result that no orders were passed by the tribunals on these applications. The appellant, however, claimed that the dismissal of these workmen was justified and therefore no case for reinstatement or compensation arose. This claim of the appellant was disputed by the respondents and therefore we find this dispute being referred for adjudication in the second term of reference.4. We shall first deal with the matter relating to suspension of theworkmen in list A to the order of reference. It may be mentioned that though in annexure A to the agreement there were thirty workmen, the reference was made only with respect toas it is said that one of the workmen out of 30 had died by the time the reference came to be made. Further out of the 29 workmen with which the first term of reference was concerned, the respondents gave up the case of five of the workmen. The tribunal therefore dealt with the case of the remaining 24. These 24 workmen were divided by the tribunal into five groups. The first group consisted of two workmen, the second group of five workmen the third group of 13 workmen, the fourth group of two workmen and the fifth group of two workmen.Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed the appeal with respect to six workmen in groups I, IV andV, and we need not therefore consider the order of the Tribunal with respect of these workmen, who are Govindo (No. 1). Bholanath (No. 8), Khaseswar (No. 7), Ramjatan (No. 27),. Rampujan (No. 26) and Khetrabasi (No. 28) of list A attached to the order of reference.5. As to the five workmen in group II, namely, Gangadhar (No. 2), Ramchandra (No. 3), Babaji Nayak (No. 4), Pahraj (No. 5) and Shankdardas (No. 6) of list A attached to the order of reference, the tribunal ordered that they should be reinstated in their jobs with effect from the date the award came into force and should be paid compensation amounting to fifteen months wages in all for the period during which they remained suspended. The appellant has challenged this order of the tribunal.

Reasoning:
Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed the appeal with respect to six workmen in groups I, IV andV, and we need not therefore consider the order of the Tribunal with respect of these workmen, who are Govindo (No. 1). Bholanath (No. 8), Khaseswar (No. 7), Ramjatan (No. 27),. Rampujan (No. 26) and Khetrabasi (No. 28) of list A attached to the order offigures of spindle stoppage given in the extract certainly tally with the figures in the two registers but the registers do not show the names of the persons who were manning the four machines, the spindle stoppage of which was given in thisassuming that these workmen manned these machines we find another serious misrepresentation in this extract. Paharaj wason November 17 and was suspended forthwith. Therefore he could not have worked after November 17, but this extract shows as if he continued working even after November 17, upto November 23 It is remarkable that serious spindle stoppage occurred on the machinery which Paharaj was said to be manning mainly after November 17, when it must have been manned by somebody else. Similarly Shankdardas wason November 17 and suspended forthwith and could not have worked thereafter. But in his case also the extract shows as if he continued to work thereafter from 18th to 23rd November and the more serious spindle stoppage is during this period when he obviously could not have manned this machine. Babaji wason November 18 and suspended forthwith. He could not have therefore worked on the machine on which his name is shown in the extract between November 19and 23 and the more serious spindle stoppage occurred after November 18 when somebody else must have been manning this machine. Gangadhar wason November, 22 and was suspended forthwith. In his case also the extract shows as if he had worked on November, 23. We strongly deprecate the manner in which the extract was used in the special leave petition to convey a wrong impression to this Court. But we do not think that we should revoke the special leave granted in this case on this ground alone. However our examination of the extract which we have set out above clearly shows that the contention of the appellant that the tribunal had patently misunderstood Exs. AA andcannot be made out. It seems to us that the reasons given by the tribunal for holding thatby these five workmen had not been proved cannot be said to be inadequate for the purpose of coming to the conclusion which it did. We may only note one reason which is given by the tribunal and which shows that everything was not alright in the appellant company in this matter. Though theto these workmen of the spinning department were given on November 17, 18 and 22, it is remarkable that in theof the appellant before the tribunal the case made out was that the workmen of the spinning department adopted slow down tactics and indulged in other subversive activities from November 23, 1957. This seems to be a surprising statement to make in the face of the charges given to these five workmen and can only show that the appellant did not really know what the correct facts were. It is further remarkable that in the application under S. 33(1)(b) which was made four months after theof the appellant had been filed, the same thing was repeated and it was said that the workers of the spinning department adopted go slow tactics on November 23 and indulged in other subversive activities. It is true that in the evidence the appellant tried to prove that slow down tactics had started earlier; but if in the circumstances the tribunal refused to believe the evidence it cannot be said that it went wrong. The contention of the appellant therefore that the view taken by the tribunal was perverse and clearly against the two registers to which we have referred above must fail.9.This brings us to the other contention of the appellant with respect to this group of workmen, namely that the tribunal did not consider the evidence with respect to other charges.It is true that in the last paragraph of the award dealing with these five workmen, the tribunal said that the appellant had failed to prove that these five workmen had adoptedtactics and did not say anything about the other charges. But a perusal of the entire discussion by the tribunal with respect to this group of workmen shows that it considered the oral evidence of all the witnesses with respect to other charges and held that their evidence was not worthy of acceptance, though it did not say so in so many words that evidence was insufficient to prove the other charges also. On the whole however a reading of the discussion of the tribunal with respect to this group of workmen convinces us that the tribunal had considered the entire evidence including the evidence with respect to other charges and did not consider that evidence worthy of acceptance. The mistake that the tribunal made was that when it recorded its conclusion in the final paragraph dealing with this group of workmen it confined itself only to say thattactics had not been proved and did not say anything about other charges. Even so we are of opinion that the consideration of the entire award of the tribunal with respect to this group of workmen leaves no doubt that the evidence on the other charges was also considered and was found unworthy of acceptance. We may add that the reason why the tribunal seems to have confined itself only toin the final paragraph is that everybody before the tribunal was concentrating onand did not worry to see what the other charges were. This will be clear when we consider the case of some other workmen in group III which will show that though there was no charge against those workmen ofthe evidence was given aboutand the tribunal also came to the conclusion that those workmen were guilty of go slow. It seems therefore that nobody worried about any other charges before the tribunal and that is how the tribunal seems to have confined its conclusion only to the charge ofeven where no suchwas given to the workmen. On the whole, however, we do not think that any case is made out for remand for consideration of other charges against these five workmen, for the tribunal seems to have considered all the evidence and did not think it worthy of acceptance. In the circumstances the appeal with respect to these five workmen in group II must fail.10. Then we come to the four workmen, in group III whose names we have already mentioned. These workmen were charged with having incited on and from various dates in October 1957 theirto slow down work. The entire evidence against these workmen was considered by the tribunal and it did not place any reliance on it for one main reason. In the case of Gulzarali the tribunal found that there was no written report against him as was the case with respect to others, and in the case of the other three the tribunal found that the written report which had been produced very late before it did not bear the endorsement of the weaving master as it should have done, as in the case of other such reports made by the Assistant weaving master. In the circumstances when the evidence was considered by the tribunal and for reasons given by it no reliance was placed upon it, we cannot say that it went wrong in not relying on that evidence. The appeal of the appellant with respect to these four workmen of group III must alsoagree with the contention of the appellant that cl. (7) applies to all suspended workmen whether they went back to work according to the first clause of the agreement or remained suspended according to cl. (1) (b) set out above. But as we read this agreement we are of opinion that cl,. (7) read along with cl. (8) refers only to suspension upto the date of the agreement and not to suspension thereafter. Clause (7) says that the suspended workmen shall not raise any dispute or make any claim with regard to the suspension period orperiod in any shape or form. This provision could only refer to suspension or layoff in the past; it could not be the intention of the agreement, for example, that if anytook place in future cl.(7) would apply to it. Further though under cl. (9) suspension of 30 workmen continued, that suspension was pending enquiry and disciplinary action. We cannot read cl. (7) and cl. (9) together for the future also unless there are clear terms to that effect. Ordinarily, the law is that a workmen may be suspended pending enquiry and disciplinary action. If after the inquiry the misconduct is proved the workman is dismissed and is not entitled to any wages for the suspension period; but if the inquiry results in the reinstatement of the workmen he is entitled to full wages, for the suspension period also along with reinstatement, unless the employer instead of dismissing the employee can give him a lesser punishment by way of withholding of part of the wages for the suspensionfollows therefore that if a workmen is fully exonerated after the inquiry, he would remain in the service of the employer and would be entitled to his full wages during the period of his suspension also. Therefore when cl. (9) envisages suspension pending inquiry and disciplinary action it also envisaged the consequence, namely, that if the inquiry results in dismissal, the workmen would get no wages for the suspension period while if the inquiry results in the reinstatement of the workman he would be entitled to full wages for the suspension period, if he is fully exonerated or to such less wages as the employer may give in case the exoneration is not complete and some punishment less than dismissal can be inflicted. We see nothing in cl. (7) which clearly takes away this legal consequence following an inquiry and disciplinary action, and it seems to us that cl. (7) must be confined to the period of suspension upto the date of agreement and there is nothing in it which would induce us to hold that it must apply to the future also. So far as the future is concerned it is cl. (9) which must wholly apply and that clause envisaged inquiry and disciplinary action and the consequence thereof depending upon the inquiry going one way or the other must also be envisaged by it in the absence of any provision about the future in this agreement. If the intention was that the workmen who remained suspended under cl. (9) would get no wages for the future, even if they were fully exonerated after an inquiry under that clause we should have found a specific provision to that effect in cl. (9) itself. We are therefore of opinion that cl. (7) refers to the period upto the date of the agreement including the period of grace given to the workmen in cl. (1) in order to join their duties and not to the future. In this view of the matter the tribunal was not unjustified in granting wages for the suspension period after the date of this agreement to those whom it reinstated. The contention of the appellant in this behalf must fail with respect to those reinstated. We shall consider the case of nine workmen permitted to be dismissed when considering the appeal of themay be accepted that rules of natural justice do not change from tribunal to tribunal. Even so the purpose of rules of natural justice is to safeguard the position of the person against whom an inquiry is being conducted so that he is able to meet the charge laid against him properly. Therefore the nature of the inquiry and status of the person against whom the inquiry is being held will have some bearing on what should be the minimum requirements of the rules of naturalseems to us therefore that when one is dealing with domestic inquiries in industrial matters, the proper course for the management is to examine the witnesses from the beginning to the end in the presence of the workman at the inquiry itself. Oral examination always takes much longer than a mere reading of a prepared statement on the same length and brings home the evidence more clearly to the person against whom the inquiry is being held. Generally speaking therefore we should expect a domestic inquiry by the management to be of this kind. Even so, we recognise the force of the argument on behalf of the appellant that the main principles of natural justice cannot change from tribunal to tribunal and therefore it may be possible to have another method of conducting a domestic inquiry (though we again repeat that this should not be the rule but the exception) and that is in the manner laid down in Shivabasappas case, AIR 1963 SC 375  . The minimum that we shall expect where witnesses are not examined from the very beginning at the inquiry in the presence of the person charged is that the person charged should be given a copy of the statements made by the witnesses which are to be used at the inquiry well in advance before the inquiry begins and when we say that the copy of the statements should be given well in advance we mean that it should be given at least two days before the inquiry is to begin. If this is not done and yet the witnesses are notfully at the inquiry, we do not think that it can be said that principles of natural justice which provide that the person charged should have in adequate opportunity of defending himself are complied with in the case of a domestic inquiry in an industrial matter. In the present case all that had happened was that the prepared statements were read over to the workmen charged and they were asked then and there tothe witnesses. They were naturally unable to do so and in the circumstances we agree with thehat the inquiry did not comply with the principles of natural justice. The order of the tribunal therefore holding that the inquiries were vitiated by disregard of rules of natural justice is correct. We may add however that in spite of the above finding the tribunal permitted termination of the service of four of these five workmen and reinstated only one.Hanif is the first workman in this group of nine. It appears from discussion in the award with respect to Hanif that though in the finding part there is a suggestion as if this workman was guilty ofhimself, it appears that the tribunal knew that the charge against Hanif was forto slow down work. There was evidence before the tribunal to the effect that Hanif roamed about in the department and incited workers to slow down work and that evidence was considered by the tribunal. It also appears that the tribunal accepted that evidence and the final conclusion at which the tribunal arrived was that Hanif was rightlyby the appellant and the appellant should be permitted to dismiss him.In the circumstances it cannot be said so far as this workman is concerned that there was no evidence to support the charge actually framed against him. It would also be wrong to say that the tribunal did not find that the charge actually framed against him had been proved, though it may be admitted that there is an undercurrent in the discussion as if Hanif was guilty ofhimself. Even so the tribunal appears to have found him guilty of inciting other workers and this would clearly be misconduct understanding order No. 22(k), for which a workman could be dismissed. In the circumstances we are of opinion that there is no reason for our interference with the order of the tribunal in the case of Hanif.18. The next workman is Narayan. He was also charged with having incited other workers to slow down work. In his case also the tribunal apparently came to the conclusion that he took part in deliberatebut during the discussion in the award, the tribunal started by saying that he was charged with inciting other workers towork and referred to the evidence which showed that Narayan had gone round in the department and asked the workmen to work two looms instead of four and to give low production. This evidence was apparently accepted by the tribunal, though at the end of the discussion the tribunal did say that Narayan took part in deliberatetactics. Though therefore the conclusion of the tribunal with respect to Narayan seems to suggest as if he was dismissed for taking part inhimself, the discussion in the award with respect to him shows that the tribunal was apparently satisfied that he had also incited other workers to slow down. In the circumstances we do not think that a case has been made out for interference with the order of the tribunal in the case of Narayan.19. Then we come to the case of Khalil. He was also charged with having incited other workers to slow down. In his case also there was evidence that he had incited other workers to slow down which was apparently accepted by the tribunal. Though therefore the discussion in the award was with respect to incitement by this workman, at the end however the tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant had succeeded in proving that Khalil was indulging intactics causing fall in production and therefore the tribunal permitted the dismissal of Khalil for the misconduct ofas shown in the charge sheet. It seems that the tribunal has not expressed its conclusion in this and other cases in proper words and has perhaps taken the incitement of other workmen to slow down work as amounting to the misconduct ofby the workman himself. But the entire discussion in the award shows that the tribunal had accepted the evidence to the effect that Khalil was inciting histo slow down. In this view of the matter we are of opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the tribunal simply because its conclusion was not expressed in appropriate words.20. Next we come to the case of Abdul Subhan. In his case also the charge was for inciting other workmen towork. The evidence was that he incited other workers to work two looms instead of four. This evidence was apparently accepted by the tribunal but in the end it said that the appellant had succeeded in proving that Abdul Subhan had indulged intactics and therefore permitted his dismissal. Here again it seems to us that the conclusion of the tribunal has been expressed in inappropriate words, though the real finding is that Abdul Subhan had incited other workers and thus brought aboutIn his case also therefore we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the tribunal.21. Next we come to Bhagwan Singh. He was charged with incitement of other workers to slow down work and evidence was led before the tribunal that Bhagwan Singh went round instigating the weavers not to work more than two looms, though they were expected to work four looms. This evidence was apparently accepted by the tribunal, though it expressed its conclusion by saying that Bhagwan Singh had committed the misconduct of deliberatetactics. Here again, we are of opinion that the conclusion of the tribunal has been expressed in inappropriate words, though in fact it did find that Bhagwan Singh was guilty of inciting other workers to slow down. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal with respect to Bhagwan Singh.22. Next we come to Ram Ekbal. His case is exactly similar to that of Bhagwan Singh and the evidence is also exactly the same. In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal in his case either.23. Next we come to Mangroo, The charge against him was of incitement of other workers to slow down work. In his case also the evidence was that he went round in theasking the weavers to work two looms instead of four looms. This evidence was apparently accepted by the tribunal, though it expressed its conclusion inappropriately to the effect that Mangroo had adoptedtactics as shown in theand therefore his dismissal was permitted. We are of opinion that the conclusion of the tribunal in this case also was expressed inappropriately but in fact that finding was that Mangroo had incited other workers toAs we have already said, the tribunal seems to think that this incitement of others workers toamounts to adoption of deliberatetactics by the person who is guilty of incitement and that is why the tribunal expressed its final conclusion in words which we consider inappropriate. But in substance the finding is that Mangroo was guilty of inciting other workers toWe therefore see no reason to interfere with the finding of the tribunal with respect to Mangroo.24. Next we come to Satish. He was also charged with inciting other workmen to go slow. There was evidence before the tribunal that Satish incited other weavers to slow down work and this evidence was apparently accepted by the tribunal. In his case also the tribunal expressed its conclusion in inappropriate words by saying that it held that Satish had indulged intactics as charged in the charge sheet. It therefore permitted his dismissal. We are however of opinion that on a consideration of the discussion of the matter in the award the substance of the finding is that Satish was guilty of inciting other workers. In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the finding of the tribunal.25. Lastly we come to Raja Ram. His case is exactly similar to that of Satish and the evidence was also to the same effect viz., that they were going round together and inciting other workers to slow down work. In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the order of thefollows therefore that in the case of those workmen who have been ordered to be reinstated there can be no justification for depriving them of their wages from the date of the suspension which in the case of the workmen in list A to the reference, in view of the agreement of December 23, 1957, must start from December 24, 1957.Therefore, so far as these 15 workmen, out of the 29 workmen, of list A are concerned, who have been ordered to be reinstated, we see no reason for depriving them from their full wages for the entire period from December 24, 1957. The appeal of the respondents therefore with reference to these fifteen workmen in list A must be allowed and the order of the tribunal is hereby varied to the effect that they will be paid full wages from December 24, 1957.27. As to five workmen in list B to the reference, one workmen, namely. Hiralal Bhomick, was ordered to be reinstated by the tribunal and he was allowed compensation equivalent to 15 months wages. His case in our opinion is on a par with the case of the fifteen workmen in list A which we have considered above and he will therefore be entitled to his full wages from the date of his suspension and not only 15 months wages as ordered by the tribunal.28. Then we come to the case of nine workmen from list A whose case we have already considered and who were permitted to be dismissed. Further there are four workmen of list B namely, Misri (No. 1), Abdullah (No. 2). Narain Tewari (No. 5). And Din Mohd. (No. 6), whose services were allowed to be terminated with effect from the date of the enforcement of the award. The first nine workmen were allowed 12 months wages while the other four workmen were paid wages for a period of one month along with compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for each completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that these workmen should have been allowed full wages upto the date the award became enforceable, even though the tribunal had eventually permitted their dismissal or allowed their services to be terminated.29. So far as the nine workmen in list A are concerned their case in our opinion is fully covered by the decision of this Court in Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan, (1959) Supp (2) SCR 836 : (AIR 1959 SCis said that in view of this the appellant held no inquiry. Particularly, the factory manager stated that he had discussions with the secretary of the union over the matter of these workmen and no settlement could be reached. He also stated that the management wanted to hold inquiries but the Secretary of the union stated that no useful purpose would be served by holding inquiries because before final action was taken by the management, it had to consult the union.This statement was made by the factory manager who appeared as the last witnesses in the case. The secretary of the union appeared long before as the first witness in the case and he was not questioned on this matter at all. No such case was made out even in the application for permission to dismiss which was filed on June 29, 1959, to the effect that the inquiries were not held because the secretary of the union suggested that it would be useless to do so; nor was any such allegation made in theof the appellant. In the circumstances it would be difficult to hold that the reason why no inquiry was held was that the respondents did not want the inquiry. In the circumstances therefore this is a case where the management wanted to dismiss the workmen without having held an inquiry and the decision in Sasamusa case, (1959) Supp (2) SCR 836 : (AIR 1959 SC 923  ) would be fully applicable to these nine workmen who have been permitted to be dismissed and they would be entitled to full wages from December 23, 1957 till the date the tribunals award permitting dismissal becomes enforceable.30. Lastly we come to the case of the four workmen whose services have been allowed to be terminated. Nothing was urged before us with respect to the order permitting termination of service. Nor do we think that the order of the tribunal in this behalf is wrong. In their case the tribunal has said that if the inquiry proceedings had not been defective; these four persons would be liable to dismissal as ordered by the appellant. It is only because there was defect in the inquiry proceedings as stated above that it was held that the dismissal was unjustified. The tribunal therefore went on to permit the termination of service of these four workmen under one of the standing orders and finally ordered payment of wages for a period of one month along with compensation at the rate of 15 days average wages for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months. The circumstances of this case are not exactly similar to those in the Sasamusa case, (1959) Supp (2) SCR 836 : (AIR 19569 SC 923) and therefore the principle of that case would not necessarily apply. In the circumstances we do not think that we should interfere with the order of the tribunal.