Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1971 (2) TMI 112

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce 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. - C.A. 1607 OF 1966 - - - Dated:- 3-2-1971 - SHELAT, J.M., BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA AND VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A., JJ. JUDGMENT J.M. Shelat, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave, arises out of an industrial dispute .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... raised a dispute on the ground that the refusal to give them work amounted to dismissal which was sponsored by the All India Chhata Karkhana Muzdoor Union. 3. The Labour Court found, on the evidence before it, that the appellants had refused to give work to these workmen out of difference to the wishes of the rest of the workers. It held, however, that the action of the appellants in refusing work to those workmen amounted to their dismissal and since the dismissal was not for any misconduct and was made without holding any enquiry it was unjustified. In that view the labour Court ordered reinstatement and directed payment of all back wages from February 5, 1960 till the date when they would be taken back in employment. 4. The appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cumstances and instead of reinstatement ought to have compensated the workmen with adequate monetary consideration. In addition, he held that the employment of the workmen was seasonal, that they did not establish any lien on their posts during the off season and since they were dismissed almost at the beginning of the 1960 season the compensation they would be entitled to what they would have earned during the 1960 season. In this view, he quashed the order of the Labour Court which had, as aforesaid, directed reinstatement. 5. The workmen took the matter further filed a letters patent appeal. The only question which was canvassed in that appeal was whether the learned Single Judge was entitled to interfere with the order of the Labour .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from season to season. It was, therefore, not as if the Labour Court had disregarded or ignored any material circumstances or that its finding on that account was vitiated or suffered from any patent error justifying interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction The Bench finally held that the question whether a wrongfully dismissed workman should be reinstated or not being a matter of discretion of the Labour Court, if that Court had ordered reinstatement after considering all the material aspects placed before it there would be no reason for interference with such exercise of discretion by the High Court. It, therefore, held that the Single Judge was not justified in quashing the order passed by the Labour Court. 7. The question ra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as to which circumstances would constitute an exception to the general rule can be laid down as the tribunal in each case must, in a spirit of fairness and justice and in keeping with the objectives of industrial adjudication, decide whether it should, in the interest of justice, depart from the general rule. 10. It appears from the judgment of the learned single Judge that he was moved to interfere with the order of reinstatement, firately, on the ground that it would be received by the other workmen with ill grace and might result in fresh hostilities between the two groups of workmen, and secondly, that employment of workmen in this case being seasonal the employers were not bound to engage the same workmen in the next season. We find .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates