Case: Firestone Tyre And Rubber Company Of India Private Limited Vs. The Workmen Employed Represented By Firestone Tyreemployees

The appellant company carries on the business of manufacturing tyres, tubes and several other products in Bombay. Disputes arose between the management and the workmen employed in the companys tyre-curing department leading to a strike by these workmen from March 3, 1967. This strike was called off on May 15, 1967, according to workmen on certain assurances given by the Commissioner of Labour. The case of the management is that even after the workmen resumed work, they adopted a deliberate go-slow policy resulting in fall in production. On September 14, 1967 the management put up a notice asking the workmen to desist from continuing with the go-slow tactics. The notice however had no effect and from October 4, 1967 the workmen working in the tyre-curing department again went on aOctober 27 and 31, 1967 the management issued chargesheets to 102 workmen alleging that they had resorted to wilful go-slow. The chargesheets issued were in identical language and they read asare charged with the following act of misconduct under the Companys certified standing order No. 24 (C), viz.Wilful slowing down in performance of work or abetment, or instigation thereof.You have wilfully slowed down in performance of work as per particulars given below:-"The particulars were then mentioned. Three inquiry officers were appointed to inquire into the charges. Almost all the workmen refrained from participating in the inquiries; the 12 workmen concerned in this appeal also remained absent. The inquiry officers found the workmen guilty of adopting wilful go-slow tactics. The management accepted the findings of the inquiry officers and dismissed the workmen other than those who were protected workmen as defined in the explanation to section 33 (3) (b) of t he Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The management also decided to dismiss the protected workmen. As a reference concerning an earlier dispute (Reference No. 406 of 1967) was pending before the Tribunal, applications were made section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for approval of the action of the management in dismissing the workmen and under section 33 (3) (b) for permission to dismiss the protectedappears that subsequently, on April 17, 1968 the parties reached a settlement. The more important terms of the settlementThe Firestone Tyre Employees Union agreed to withdraw the strike.(2) The dispute relating to the dismissal of 101 workmen (one of the workmen concerned having died in the meantime) was to be referred for adjudication by a joint application made by the parties under section 10 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.(3) 77 of the dismissed workmen were to be re-employed on temporary basis till the disposal of the adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.(4) The remaining 25 workmen, including the 12 we are concerned within this appeal, we re not to be taken back but the management would pay to them 50 per cent of their basic wages and dearness allowance from the date of the retirement till the disposal of the adjudication by theagreed a joint application by the parties was made on which the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Bombay, under section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Reference No. 307 of 1968) referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, the disputes between the parties relating to the demands detailed in the schedule to the order of reference. Two distinct matters are mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the schedule. The second matter mentioned in paragraph 2 does not survive for consideration. The first paragraph which is divided into two parts, (A) and (B) reads asThe workmen listed at Serial Nos. 1 to 25 of Schedule I [which contains names of the 12 workmen concerned in this case] hereto should be reinstated in their former employment with continuity of service and other benefits and should be paid full wages, dearness allowance and other allowances from the date of dismissal of each of the workmen till each is so reinstated without any condition attached to suchThe workmen listed at Serial Nos. 26 to 101 of Schedule I hereto who are at present re- employed on a temporary basis should be granted reinstatement in their employment from the date of dismissal of each and should b e granted continuity of service and other benefits and also should be paid full wages, dearness allowance and other allowances from the date of dismissal of each till each was reemployed, without any condition being attached to such payment."

Reasoning:
During the pendency of the reference all the 76 workmen covered by paragraph 1 (B) of the Schedule who had been taken back on temporary basis were made permanent as a result of settlements reached between these workmen and the management. On behalf of 33 out of 76 of these workmen, the union entered into a settlement with the management, the remaining workmen of this group individually entered into settlement s with the management. The period during which the workmen were absent from duty was treated as leave without pay and continuity of their service wasthis case the points of dispute were specified in the schedule to the order of reference, and the Tribunal was therefore required to confine its adjudication to those points and matters that were incidental to them. From a reading of demands 1(A) and 1(B) as a whole it is clear that the demand for reinstatement in respect of both groups of workmen as made arises on the alleged invalidity of the action taken by the management in dismissing these workmen. The issue of unfair labour practice or discrimination by reason of subsequent reinstatement on a permanent basis of some and not all the 25 workmen was not a matter referred to the Tribunal for adjudication, nor it can be said to be in any way connected with or incidental to the right of reinstatement claimed by the 101 workmen from the date of their dismissal. The fairness of subsequent absorption of some workmen is a matter quite irrelevant for judging the validity of the earlier dismissal of these workmen along with others; it is an entirely separate and independent question. The Tribunal also did not frame an issue on the alleged discrimination. That being so, we think the Tribunal travelled outside its jurisdiction in recording a finding of unfair labour practice andfind no reason to disturb the finding that the inquiry held was not proper. The Tribunal has found that the chargesheets issued were vague as they did not disclose the relevant material on which the charges were based. It was contended on behalf of the Union on the basis of this finding that no useful purpose would be served by remitting the case to the Tribunal. It is settled law now that when no inquiry has been held or the inquiry held has not been proper, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to allow the management to lead evidence to justify the action taken. The contention is that the charge-sheets being vague, the Tribunal would not be in a position to decide what evidence to let in, and, therefore, sending the matter back to the Tribunal would only be an idle formality. It is not possible to accept this contention. Normally an inquiry by the management starts by issuing a charge-sheet to the workmen proposed to be discharged or dismissed. In a case where the chargesheet is vague, it must be held that there has been no properview of the well-settled legal position, the order directing reinstatement of the 12 workmen without a consideration of the merits of the case cannot be sustained. We therefore remit the case to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the dispute concerning the demand specified in paragraph 1(A) of the Schedule to the order of Reference after giving the parties concerned an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases.