Case: Motipur Zamindari Company Private, Limited, and Another Vs. Their Workmen and Others

These three appeals arise out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, the management of Motipur Zamindari and another and their workmen. Six points of disputes were referred to the industrial tribunal for its adjudication. After hearing the parties the tribunal made its award. Aggrieved by the said award both the employer and the workmen have come to this Court by special leave. Appeals Nos. 110 and 112 of 1964 are preferred by the employers, whereas Appeal No. 111 of 1964 has been preferred by the workmen.

Reasoning:
In our opinion, the contention raised by Sri Roy in respect of this condition raised. We would, therefore, direct that instead of the said clause another clause should be substituted in the scheme of gratuity. The provision should be that while paying the gratuity to a workman who is dismissed for misconduct only such amount should be deducted from the gratuity due to him in respect of which loss may have been caused by the misconduct of the employeeWe are not impressed by this argument. But apart from the question as to whether the employee refused to take delivery of the envelope, it is plain that the employee who gave evidence has admitted that on 8 April, 1957 he was transferred work as Jirat chaukidar at Motipur centre and he did not go.Therefore, the contention that there is no evidence to support the finding of the tribunal that the employee refused to obey the order of transfer is plainly misconceived. Whether or not the evidence given by the employee justified the said conclusion would be a matter of appreciating evidence and this Court in dealing with industrial appeal under Art. 136 ordinarily does not enter into question of fact. In our opinion, therefore, there is no substance in the argument urged by Sri Roy, that the finding made by the tribunal in respect of the dismissal of this employee is invalid in law.There is one more point which Sri Roy has urged before us and that is in regard to the date from which the award has been ordered by the tribunal to come into force. It does appear that though the reference in the present case was made as early as in 1957 the award was ultimately pronounced in 1963. Sri Roy contends that in view of the fact that the proceedings before the tribunal took such a long time it would be unfair not to direct the payment of the wages as devised by the tribunal from the date of the reference. It is true that these proceedings had taken an unduly long time, but we do not see any justification for interfering with the order passed by the tribunal. Normally it is for the tribunal to consider from what date the award should take effect and having regard to the fact that the workmen in question are employed in agricultural labour the tribunal thought that the operation of the award should begin from the date when the award was pronounced. In this view of the matter, we are reluctant to interfere with the direction of the tribunal.