Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co.

of
India v. The Management and Ors.

Facts:
The respondent company manufactured tyres in Bombay with a distribution office in Delhi. The
workmen of the company had a dispute with its employer because of the termination of its workmen
based on a Domestic enquiry finding. While the case was pending, The Industrial Tribunal Act was
amended in 1971, and Section 11 A that conferred the powers of Appellate authority to the Industrial
Tribunal over domestic enquiry decision was inserted. The Industrial tribunal disregarded this
amended provision of Section 11 A and ruled the judgement in favor of the employer. This decision
was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The counsel for the petitioners argued that Section 11A
applies not only to cases after 15-12-1971 (the date the act was passed) but also on all pending cases
till then since the wordings of the act considerably point towards the same. The respondents on the
other hand argued that the amendment must not be allowed in the present case since it was meant for
all cases that would arise in the future. Both the parties also interpreted Section 11A in varied forms.

Key Issues:
The key issues in this case were:

       The proper interpretation of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act

       If the amended act had a retrospective application, that is, if it was applicable on the cases
that were pending before it was passed
  

Decision of the court:

The court after interpreting Section 11A, dismissed the appeal and stated that Section 11A
would apply only to cases that have come before the court after the amendment was passed,
that is after 15-12-1971.

Final Ratio:
The court observed that the right to decide upon the degree of punishment or to take a
disciplinary action are managerial functions. However, if a matter is referred to the tribunal,
the tribunal has the authority to check and if needed intervene in the employer’s actions. The
only requirements are that it should be done in good faith, there should be victimization of
labour and there is a violation of natural justice. Hence, if an enquiry has not been conducted
or if the enquiry is unfair, the court or the tribunal has the right to interfere in the employer’s
decisions according to Section 11A of the Industrial Tribunal Act. The court also held that if
misconduct is proved, the punishment imposed by the employer cannot be interfered with by
the tribunal or the court unless it is extremely harsh. It also stated that the tribunal has the
jurisdiction to consider the evidence of an enquiry only if no enquiry has been committed or
of the employer is found to be defective in his justifications of action. Hence, the court
clarified the interpretation of Section 11A and clarified the aim behind the section. It said that
the objective of the section was not to interfere in the relationship of an employer and
employee but to ensure that an employer is not biased or unfair in his actions. It said that “the
section has the effect of altering the law by abridging the rights of the employer as much as it
gives power to the Tribunal for the first time to differ both on a finding of misconduct arrived
at by an employer as well as the punishment imposed by him.” Furthermore, it held that
Section 11A applies only the disputes that have occurred after the section has come into
force, that is, after 15-12-1971, since the proviso says, “in any proceeding under the section.”
It observed that a proceeding under a section can only occur after the section has been
enacted. The appeal was thus dismissed.

 
Personal Observation:
In my opinion, this judgement is important when it comes to labour laws primarily because of
the reasoning the judges give while interpreting Section 11A. The judges make the aim of
Labour laws clear through their reasoning. They direct the interpretation of the section
majorly to the benefit of the employee. Hence, the interpretation of Section 11A not only
clarified the intention behind that section, but behind Labour laws. This according to me is
the base of any judgement that will be adjudicated in future, making this case important.
Also, it set a strong precedent for the other courts with regards to the scope of Section 11A
and its interpretation.