Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India adjudicated an industrial dispute concerning the discharge of 119 seasonal workmen employed as cane carrier mazdoors, supervisors, and jamadars in a sugar factory. The dispute arose from the employer's introduction of an incentive bonus scheme for the 1960-61 crushing season, which proposed a daily crushing norm of 32,000 maunds. The workmen, through their union, suggested alterations including a norm of 125,000 maunds, but no agreement was reached. The employer alleged that from November 27, 1960, the workmen deliberately and wilfully engaged in a go-slow, reducing average daily crushing to about 26,000 maunds, causing fuel shortage and risking machinery breakdown. On December 15, 1960, the employer issued a general and individual notice requiring each workman to record willingness to work faithfully and achieve a minimum daily crush of 32,000 maunds by 4 PM on December 17, 1960, failing which they would stand discharged. Only three workmen complied; the remaining 119 were discharged effective December 18, 1960. No domestic enquiry was held as required by Standing Orders. A general strike followed from December 18 to 22, 1960, after which both parties jointly applied to the Government for adjudication. The Government referred two questions to the Industrial Tribunal: whether the discharge was justified and whether wages for the strike period were payable. The Tribunal, examining evidence primarily documentary and statistical, concluded that go-slow had occurred and the discharge was fully justified; the strike wages claim was not pressed and decided against the workmen. On appeal by special leave, the appellants contended that the Tribunal could only decide the justification of discharge for not giving the undertaking, not the underlying go-slow; that the absence of a domestic enquiry barred the employer from justifying the discharge; and that the finding of go-slow was perverse. The Supreme Court rejected all contentions, holding that the wide terms of reference, the parties' understanding before the Tribunal, and the context of the joint application permitted the Tribunal to examine the real dispute, including whether go-slow constituted misconduct justifying discharge. The Court reiterated the settled principle that there is no distinction between an invalid domestic enquiry and no enquiry at all; in both cases, the Tribunal may allow the employer to prove misconduct and decide the merits itself. After reviewing the evidence, the Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that go-slow was proved and the discharge of 119 workmen was fully justified. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's award was affirmed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Tribunal's Jurisdiction - Reference Interpretation - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Industrial Tribunal was entitled to examine whether go-slow occurred and justified the discharge, even though the reference question was framed as whether the discharge was justified, because the terms of reference were wide, the parties understood it as such before the Tribunal, and it was made soon after a joint application. Held that the Tribunal could go into the real dispute between the parties, namely whether the discharge was justified on the ground of misconduct in the form of go-slow by the workmen concerned. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Industrial Disputes - Domestic Enquiry - Justification of Discharge - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Standing Orders - No distinction can be made between cases where the domestic enquiry is invalid and those where no enquiry has in fact been held. The Tribunal may give an opportunity to the employer to prove his case and in doing so the Tribunal tries the merits itself. Held that the employer can justify the discharge before the Tribunal even when no domestic enquiry was held. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Industrial Disputes - Misconduct (Go-Slow) - Evidence - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including documentary and statistical material, and held that the decision of the Tribunal was not wrong that there was go-slow and that the discharge of 119 workmen was fully justified. Held that the finding of go-slow was not perverse. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal could decide the question of go-slow when the reference was only about justification of discharge; whether the employer could justify the discharge before the Tribunal despite holding no domestic enquiry as required by Standing Orders; whether the Tribunal's finding that go-slow had been proved was perverse
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Industrial Tribunal's award, holding that the discharge of 119 workmen was fully justified due to proved go-slow. The Tribunal was entitled to examine the real dispute despite absence of domestic enquiry, and the employer could justify discharge before the Tribunal. The finding of go-slow was not perverse.
Law Points
- Go-slow constitutes misconduct
- Tribunal can examine real dispute under wide reference
- no distinction between invalid domestic enquiry and no enquiry
- employer can justify discharge before Tribunal by proving misconduct
- Tribunal can try merits itself
- finding of go-slow not perverse
