1964 (11) TMI 106 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the dismissal of twelve workmen.
2. Validity of the domestic enquiry process.
3. Allegations of "go slow" action by the workmen.
4. Right to representation by a Union member in the enquiry.
5. Discrimination between workmen of different mills.
6. Tribunal's interference with the company's disciplinary actions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Dismissal of Twelve Workmen:
The Supreme Court examined the dismissal of twelve workmen by Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. The Tribunal had previously set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement with partial back wages, deeming the dismissal improper. However, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal was wrong in almost all its conclusions. The Court held that the workmen were properly charged with "go slow" action, which is a major misconduct under the Company's Standing Orders.

2. Validity of the Domestic Enquiry Process:
The Court scrutinized the domestic enquiry process conducted by Mr. P.K. Maitra. The workmen had requested representation by a member of their own Union, which was not recognized by the Company. The Supreme Court found that under the Standing Orders, representation could only be by a member of a recognized Union. The failure to allow representation by their own Union did not vitiate the enquiry process or amount to a denial of natural justice.

3. Allegations of "Go Slow" Action by the Workmen:
The Supreme Court upheld the Company's charge that the workmen engaged in "go slow" action. The Court noted that the workmen had been warned about their slow work, and the log books confirmed a reduction in output. The Court concluded that the workmen's actions were deliberate and aimed at forcing the Company to meet their demands, thereby substantiating the charge of "go slow" misconduct.

4. Right to Representation by a Union Member in the Enquiry:
The Court referred to previous rulings (Kalindi & Ors. v. Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co. Ltd. and Brook Bond India (P) Ltd. v. Subba Raman) to assert that there is no inherent right to representation unless the Company's Standing Orders provide for it. The Court found that the workmen's insistence on representation by their own unrecognized Union was an indirect attempt to gain Union recognition, which the Company was not obliged to accept.

5. Discrimination Between Workmen of Different Mills:
The Court addressed the claim of discrimination between the Banbury Mill and Dual Auto Mill workmen. The Tribunal had reinstated Banbury Mill workmen but not those from the Dual Auto Mill. The Court found that the selection for reinstatement was made by Union No. 4145, and there was no evidence of discrimination by the Company. The Court suggested that the Banbury Mill workmen might not have participated in the "go slow" action as the Dual Auto Mill workmen did.

6. Tribunal's Interference with the Company's Disciplinary Actions:
The Supreme Court criticized the Tribunal for acting as a court of appeal and scrutinizing the evidence to reach its own conclusions. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's findings were not justified based on the evidence. The Court held that the Company's disciplinary actions were justified and that the Tribunal's order should be vacated.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court vacated the Tribunal's order and upheld the Company's decision to dismiss the twelve workmen. The appeal was allowed, and the Court made no order as to costs. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to established procedures and the limitations of external interference in a company's internal management, provided the actions are bona fide and not manifestly unfair. The Court also suggested that the Company consider recognizing Union No. 4145, given its larger membership and the potential for industrial peace.