Case: India General Navigation and Railway Company, Limited Vs. Brojolal Chakraborty

1. This is an appeal by special leave by the India General Navigation and Railway Company, Ltd. (hereinafter called the appellant), against the award passed by the Sixth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, directing it to allow Brojolal Chakraborty (hereinafter called the respondent) to continue in its services as if there had been no break and to pay full wages for the entire period from 1 July, 1955, within fifteen days of the publication of the award.2. The industrial dispute which led to this award arose in this way. The appellant is a company incorporated in England under the English Companies Act; and it carries on, inter alia, business of overhauling and repairing inland river steamships, launches, barges, etc. For the purpose of carrying out its business the appellant maintains a dockyard amongs other places at Rajabagan, Calcutta, which is known as the Rajabagan Dockyard. At this dockyard 3, 300 workmen are employed by theappellant had submitted its draft standing orders in accordances with the provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the same had been duly certified by the certifying officer. One of the said standing orders dealt with the question of retirement; and it provided that the workmen employed by the appellant shall retire from the services of the appellant on reaching the stipulated age or on completion of the stipulated number of years service whichever came first in accordance with an agreement to be entered into by the appellant with the recognized registered trade union known by the name of India General Navigation and Railway Employees; Union. This standing order, however, left it to the discretion of the appellant to offer an extension to its employees beyond the age of superannuation, and it further laid down that, in the absence of any agreement, the workmen shall retire on reaching the age of 55 years subject to the extension at the companys discretion.After this standing order was certified, by exchange of correspondence between the appellant and the recognized union, an agreement was reached on 28 December, 1953, by which it was settled that workmen should retire on completion of 37 years of service or on reaching 60 years of age whichever would come first. This agreement was the result of settlement between the appellant and the recognized union. Thereafter, this rule was enforced by the appellant and the workmen were retired under23 March 1954, a further agreement was reached between the appellant and the recognized union by which it was agreed to appoint a committee consisting of the manager and the head of the department concerned, the dockyard labour and welfare officer, the dockyard medical officer and theof the recognized union, to examine the ages of the workmen of the Rajabagan as dockyard as recorded in their service cards and to decide about the correctness or otherwise of the records after examining all relevant documents. It was further agreed that in all age disputes the decision given by the chairman of the committee would becommittee was accordingly appointed and it examined about 100 cases including that of the respondent. In December, 1954, the said committee, having examined the respondent and his records and the medical report, decided that the age recorded in the service card of the respondent should be reduced to 31 years as on the date of his appointment since his age was held to be 59 years 6 months on the date of the decision. The evidence about the respondents age produced before the committee was signed by the assistant secretary and theof the recognized union. In accordance with this decision the service card of the respondent was duly amended.On 15 June 1955, the respondent was told by a letter that he would be retired with effect from 1 July, 1955, on the ground of his reaching the age of 60 years. It was this order which was challenged by the respondent and which ultimately led to the present reference by the Government of West Bengal on on 25 July, 1956. The question referred to the tribunal was whether the company had forcibly retired the respondent before the age of superannuation and to what relief he would be entitled. It is on this reference that the tribunal has made the award which has given rise to the present appeal.

Court's reasoning:
But, part from this consideration, the conclusion of the tribunal on the question of respondents age is patently erroneous. The tribunal was not satisfied with the documentary evidence adduced by both the parties. It throughout that it lacked precision and was evenare satisfied that the approach adopted by the tribunal in dealing with this simple question of fact is wholly improper. Even if the evidence did not appear to the tribunal to be entirely satisfactorily, it should have made an attempt to assess it and to come to some conclusion about the age of the respondent. Having criticized the respondent in strong terms and having held that he had no regard for truth, it is difficult to understand how the tribunal felt justified in solemnly alternative its conclusion that there was no alternative but to accept the respondents the rest of the findings, this conclusion must be characterized ashaving regard to the whole of the evidence available on the record, we see no justification for holding that the conclusion reached by the appellant after a fair and formal enquiry about the age of the respondent can be said to be erroneous. In the result, we must hold that it is not shown that the appellant has improperly retired the respondent.