Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from an industrial dispute between a cotton mill management and its workmen regarding suspension wages and dismissal. The First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, had passed an award on two references made by the Government of West Bengal: the first concerning relief for 29 workmen named in list 'A' who were suspended pending inquiry, and the second concerning termination of employment of 12 workmen named in list 'B' who were dismissed after domestic inquiries. In late 1957, workmen in various departments of the mill resorted to go-slow tactics and illegal strikes. The management suspended about 1,600 workmen. Negotiations led to an agreement on December 23, 1957, under which workmen resumed work. Clause 7 of the agreement provided that suspended workmen would not be entitled to wages or compensation for the suspension period. Clause 9 provided that 30 workmen (later 29 due to death) would remain suspended pending inquiry and disciplinary action. The management did not hold an inquiry for these 29 workmen but filed an application under Section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the tribunal seeking permission to dismiss them. Separately, 12 workmen were charge-sheeted, inquiries were held, and they were dismissed; applications under Section 33(2)(b) for approval were not disposed because the pending dispute got decided, and the matter was referred for adjudication. The tribunal divided the 24 surviving suspended workmen into groups, ordering reinstatement of five with 15 months' wages, permitting dismissal of nine out of thirteen in another group, reinstating four, and awarding 12 months' wages to all 24 for the suspension period. For the five dismissed workmen whose dismissal was referred, the tribunal held the domestic inquiry violated natural justice but found the evidence before it justified dismissal of four. The Supreme Court considered whether clause 7 of the agreement barred wages for the post-agreement suspension period; whether the workmen were entitled to wages during suspension without an inquiry; and whether the domestic inquiry against the five dismissed workmen complied with natural justice. The management contended that clause 7 barred any wages for the suspension period, that the inquiry for the five workmen was fair, and that the tribunal erred in awarding 12 months' wages to all and in distinguishing four workmen from the thirteen. The workmen contended that they were entitled to full wages because no inquiry was held, and that the domestic inquiry violated natural justice. The Court interpreted clause 7 as applying only to the suspension period up to the date of the agreement, not to the continuing suspension under clause 9. It reiterated the ordinary rule: a workman suspended pending inquiry is not entitled to wages if dismissed after a valid inquiry, but is entitled to full wages if reinstated. Since there was no standing order or term of service allowing suspension without pay, and since the management did not hold an inquiry but sought adjudication, the Court held all 29 workmen were entitled to full wages from the agreement date to the award date. Regarding natural justice, the Court observed that rules do not vary by tribunal but their minimum content depends on the nature of the inquiry. In a domestic inquiry, the proper course is to examine witnesses from beginning to end in the workman's presence. Previous statements can be used only exceptionally, with copies given to the workman at least two days in advance. The management had merely read out previous statements and asked for cross-examination without supplying copies; this violated natural justice. The Supreme Court upheld the tribunal's award on suspension wages, directing full wages for the suspension period from the agreement date, and held that the domestic inquiry against the five workmen violated natural justice.
Headnote
A) Industrial Dispute - Suspension Wages - Interpretation of Settlement Clause - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(1)(b) - Clause 7 of December 23, 1957 agreement referred to suspension period up to the agreement date and did not bar wages for suspension after that date pending inquiry under clause 9. The tribunal was justified in awarding wages for the post-agreement suspension period. Held that ordinarily a workman suspended pending inquiry is not entitled to wages if dismissed after inquiry, but if reinstated is entitled to full wages for the suspension period (Paras Not mentioned). B) Industrial Dispute - Suspension Without Wages - Standing Orders and Terms of Service - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - No standing order or term of service authorised the management to suspend workmen without pay. Therefore all 29 suspended workmen were entitled to full wages from the agreement date to the award date, including the nine permitted to be dismissed, because the management held no inquiry and sought adjudication for permission to dismiss. Held that where management wants to dismiss without holding an inquiry, workmen are entitled to full wages up to the date of enforcement of the award, relying on Hotel Imperial and Sasa Musa Sugar Works (Paras Not mentioned). C) Natural Justice - Domestic Inquiry Procedure - Examination-in-Chief and Previous Statements - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Inquiry against five dismissed workmen violated natural justice because witnesses' previous statements were read out without examination-in-chief and copies were not supplied before cross-examination. Held that in a domestic inquiry the proper course is to examine witnesses from beginning to end in the presence of the workman; in exceptional cases a witness may confirm a previously recorded statement and be tendered for cross-examination, but the previous statement must be given to the workman at least two days before (Paras Not mentioned). D) Natural Justice - Domestic Inquiry - Minimum Requirements - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Rules of natural justice do not change from tribunal to tribunal, but their purpose is to enable the person charged to meet the case; the nature of inquiry and status of person charged affect minimum requirements. The inquiry against the five workmen failed to meet these minimum requirements by not furnishing previous statements and not examining witnesses in chief. Held that such procedure violates natural justice (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether clause 7 of the December 23, 1957 agreement barred the 29 suspended workmen from claiming wages for the suspension period after the agreement; whether the management was entitled to suspend workmen without wages pending inquiry and adjudication; whether the domestic inquiry against the five dismissed workmen complied with principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that clause 7 of the December 23, 1957 agreement referred to the suspension period up to the date of the agreement and not to the suspension thereafter. The 29 suspended workmen were entitled to full wages from the date of the agreement up to the date of the award, including the nine permitted to be dismissed, because the management held no inquiry and sought adjudication for permission to dismiss. The inquiry against the five dismissed workmen violated principles of natural justice because witnesses' previous statements were read out without examination-in-chief and copies were not supplied before cross-examination. The tribunal's award on suspension wages was upheld and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Clause 7 of settlement covers suspension only up to agreement date
- Workman suspended pending inquiry is not entitled to wages if dismissed after inquiry
- But entitled to full wages if reinstated
- Management cannot suspend without wages absent standing order or contract
- Where no inquiry held and reference to adjudication sought workmen entitled to full wages up to award date
- Domestic inquiry must examine witnesses in chief
- Previous statement can be used only exceptionally with advance copy to workman
- Natural justice violated if previous statement read without copy and without examination-in-chief
- Tribunal's award of 12 months wages for suspension period justified
- Dismissal of 9 workmen permitted but they entitled to wages until award date
- Reinstated workmen entitled to 15 months wages
