1971 (2) TMI 112 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the dismissal of the said eight workmen by the appellant firm was justified? Held that - In the absence of any proof that that would be the consequence of reinstatement, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that it would so result was only an assumption. It is true that the workmen could not have lien on the posts to which they were employed in tne technical sense of that term but, as aforesaid, there was evidence of the firm following the practice of engaging the same workmen when they presented themselves for work at the commencement of the next season. The appellant having failed to lead evidence as to a reasonable possibility of recurrence of trouble if the concerned workmen were to be reinstated or of their not being entitled to be employed at the beginning of the next season, it was impossible to say that the case of an exception to the general rule of reinstatement was made out. The case before the High Court thus was not one where there was any error of law on the record, nor was it a case where the Labour Court had acted in excess of its jurisdiction or failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Industrial dispute regarding the dismissal of eight workmen by the appellant firm.

Analysis:
The dispute arose when the appellants refused to give work to the eight workmen due to union rivalry, resulting in a resolution passed by the majority of workers. The Labour Court found the dismissal unjustified as it was not for misconduct and no inquiry was conducted, ordering reinstatement with back wages. The High Court quashed the reinstatement order, citing exceptional circumstances and seasonal employment, suggesting monetary compensation instead of reinstatement.

The workmen filed a letters patent appeal questioning the interference by the High Court with the Labour Court's reinstatement order. The Division Bench emphasized that the Labour Court's discretion on reinstatement should not be interfered with unless there are valid reasons such as disturbance of industrial peace. The Bench noted the seasonal nature of work but highlighted the firm's practice of engaging the same workmen each season, supporting the Labour Court's decision of reinstatement.

The appellant firm raised the same issue before the Supreme Court, questioning the High Court's interference with the Labour Court's discretion on reinstatement. The Court refrained from addressing whether the dismissal was wrongful, focusing on the High Court's jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that the High Court's role is supervisory and should not act as an appellate authority over industrial tribunal decisions unless there is a clear violation of principles.

The Court referenced the Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Roy case, emphasizing the tribunal's discretion to award compensation instead of reinstatement in exceptional circumstances. The Court criticized the High Court's reasoning for quashing the reinstatement order, noting the lack of evidence supporting potential industrial hostilities or the firm's practice of re-engaging seasonal workers. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in interfering with the Labour Court's decision, upholding the Division Bench's ruling and dismissing the appeal with costs.