Labour II Case Summaries

1. Metal Box of India Ltd. V Their Workmen

Wide scope given to the Works Committee/ Their Decisions are binding/Agreed Solutions
between WC and management are entitled to great weight /classification, grades and scales

2. Kemp and Co. Ltd v Their Workmen

WC has a say in day to day decision making, but final decision with the Trade Union/ The
decisions of the WC are conclusive but not definitive

3. North Brook Jute Co. Their Workmen

The Works committee is not intended to supplant or supersede unions and cannot take
important decisions such as alteration of terms of service /Can only comment on
common interests and day to day working - (This is my observation- Could the Works
Committee really be called a collective bargaining mechanism???)/ This was also a
violation of Section 33 since a reference to an industrial tribunal was pending.

4. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v The Management

This case deals with the powers of the labour courts, tribunals and national tribunals to
give appropriate relief in case of discharge of workmen under Section 11 A of the
Industrial Disputes Act. More particularly, the case deals with the proviso to Section 11
A which says that the labour court, tribunal or national tribunal will rely only on the
materials on record and not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter. The
endeavour of the Supreme Court was to provide a holistic interpretation of the
provision as a whole.

The position before the introduction of Section 11 A through an amendment in 1971

was that a labour court or tribunal could not sit as a court of appeal and decide upon
the discharge or dismissal of a workman unless there had been a gross injustice or
violation of due process. However, the ILO recommended an appellate process and
therefore, Section 11 A , though not strictly an appellate mechanism was introduced.

With this background the following was the ruling of the Court (including an
interpretation of the proviso)-

The Court glanced at jurisprudence up to 1971 and came to the conclusion that till the
amendment, judicial opinion was in favour of allowing en employer or a worker to
adduce fresh evidence before a tribunal, even if a domestic enquiry was not conducted
properly or was defective. The reason for this opinion is that the enquiry conducted by
the tribunal is a composite enquiry which does not only enquire into the validity of the
domestic enquiry but the very action of the worker. Therefore, one cannot argue that
because a domestic enquiry was defective or not conducted, a worker could be
automatically reinstated. (Para 32)
Therefore , the question which comes up here is whether, Section 11-A has made any
changes to the position mentioned above .

This was the reasoning of the Court-

 The Tribunal is now clothed with the power to reappraise evidence in the
domestic enquiry and satisfy itself. The tribunal can not only decide if the
finding made out by an employer is correct but also differ from the said finding
if a proper case is made out.
 Even if no enquiry has been held by the employer or the enquiry is defective, it is
open to the employer to adduce relevant evidence for the first time before the
tribunal to justify the order of dismissal or discharge .
 Likewise, even the workers can adduce evidence for the first time
 Whether evidence has been produced for the first time or not, or whether a
domestic enquiry has been held or not, it is the satisfaction of the tribunal that
matters and it has to come to a conclusion. Section 11-A gives full power to
tribunals to go into evidence.
 Power of Tribunal to alter the punishment imposed by an employer- The
Tribunal can reduce or change the punishment after weighing the evidence
before it. This may be on the basis of only the domestic enquiry or fresh evidence
being taken into account.
 Meaning of "Materials on Record" in the proviso-This is not limited only to
material produced before the domestic enquiry but further evidence placed
before the tribunal and material adduced for the first time in relation to that
particular dispute.
 "Fresh Evidence" relates to the material on record . The Tribunal cannot call for
fresh evidence as an appellate tribunal may do
The section is prospective in nature .

5. Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd v Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha

Standing orders terminating workmen need to be examined in order to investigate

whether the standing orders are punitive or not. If the orders are punitive in nature ,
then reasons have to be given and workmen cannot be dismissed without notice as on
may do in cases of misconduct such as inciting, organising, participating or abetting an
illegal strike. In this case, though the strike was held to be illegal the court lifted the veil
and examined the real reason for dismissal of the workmen. A high Court does most
certainly have the power under Article 226 to enquire into decision of the arbitrator.
The court held that the arbitrator can bind even those who are not party to the dispute (
example being workmen not directly party to the dispute ) and therefore the arbitrator
is a part of the infrastructure of the sovereign's dispensation of justice , thus falling
within the rainbow of statutory tribunals amendable to judicial review. (This is a very
interesting aspect- perhaps in labour disputes equating a private arbitrator to a public
authority).The arbitrator should have dealt with each dispute individually and falls
under the definition of Tribunal in Section 11 A.(Related to the point above). Thus
justifying writ jurisdiction.
 6. Indian Railway Construction Company v Ajay Kumar

Court cannot interfere with decision of internal enquiry if there was no impropriety

7. Sirsilk v Government of AP

Publication of Award is Mandatory and not directory

8. Remington Rand v Their Workmen

Publication of Award is Mandatory and not directory

9. Dena Bank v Kirtikumar Patel

This case deals with the expression "full wages last drawn" under Section 17 B of the
Industrial Disputes Act. "Full Wages Last Drawn" are given their plain and literal
meaning . These wages are in the nature of subsistence wages and do not mean wages as
on the present date. HC or SC may order a higher quantum of wages in the interest of
justice.

10. Dena Bank v Ghanshyam

Here, the workman was awarded wages under Section 17 B at the present pay scale and not
under “full wages last drawn”. The Court did not refer to 17 B in its order. It was held that
should the appellant company succeed the worker would have to return to the company any
excess amount received.

11. Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v State of Karnataka

Court cannot protect interest of workmen alone

/ Employees cannot be allowed to break rules with impunity/ Discretionary jurisdiction to
interfere with quantum of punishment is only be exercised when it is found that no reasonable
person will inflict such punishment.
 12. Scooters India Ltd v Labour Court

Even if the labour court finds that the internal enquiry was proper and followed the
principles of natural justice, it can interfere with the order of termination of service if it
deems fit.

13. J.K. Synthetics v KP Agarwal

(This judgment is very important from the point of view of understanding how Section
11 A works in practice )

The main question which arose in this case was as follows-

When the punishment of dismissal is substituted with a lesser punishment, i.e stoppage
of increments for two years and consequently the employee is directed to be reinstated,
whether the employee is entitled to back wages from the date of termination to the date
of reinstatement. The power to correct an award under Section 6 (6) of the IDA does not
extend to merits. Therefore if the original award did not contain back wages, then the
corrected award cannot contain backwages.
\
This is what the court held-

Back wages are not an automatic consequence of reinstatement

Back wages are the discretion of the Court
Any income received by the employee during this period is to be taken into account
By ordering reinstatement, the court or tribunal is not ruling that the employer was
wrong. The Court is merely exercising its discretion to award a lesser punishment
When punishment is reduced as being excessive, there can be a direction for
reinstatement or nominal lump sum payment.
Reinstatement can be retrospective or prospective
Where misconduct is affirmed, reinstatement cannot be automatic and if directed,
cannot be automatically retrospective from the date of termination
Therefore backwages and other benefits do not automatically follow- this may amount
to rewarding the employee
In this cases, the denial of increment was held to be prospective .
The Court also held that there was no need for the labour court to interfere with the
decision of internal enquiry since the charge was serious.
Also please note the important the Court made about changing its approach towards
labour issues in light of market economy
 14. Management of Needle Industries v Labour Court

The government can refer an industrial dispute for resolution even without the
management or the workman specifically asking for a reference. Even where the
workman does not specifically ask for reinstatement or make a demand of the
management, there arises an industrial dispute.

15. General Manager , Security Paper Mill v R.S Sharma

General Mills , Security Paper Mills, Hoshangabad v. R. s . Sharma and Others - Where
a settlement between management and a union on behalf of all the workers arrived at in
the course of conciliation proceedings , a subsequent settlement entered into between
management and another union not representing all the workers would not be binding
on those who were not parties thereto and not members of that union, in the absence of
a notice under S. 19 (2) terminating the earlier settlement.

1. State of Madras v. C.P. Sarathy- A Court cannot examine the order of reference closely to
see if there was any material before the government to support its conclusion, as if the
determination of the government were a judicial or a quasi judicial determination. The
determination of the government is administrative in nature and the expediency of making a
reference are matters entirely for the government. Moreover, the government, in public
interest, may have to refer a dispute to prevent a strike or lockout. Moreover, it is not
necessary that the exact nature or details of the dispute be particularised. It is enough that
there is a dispute.

2. State of Bombay v. K. P. Krishnan- This judgment expands upon the previous decision, but
please note, does not overrule it. This case says that an order passed by the government
under Section 12 (5) may be an administrative order and the reasons recorded by it may not
be justiciable in the sense that their propriety, adequacy or satisfactory character may not
be open to judicial scrutiny. However, if a Court is satisfied that the reasons given by the
government for refusing to make a reference are extraneous and not germane then the
Court can issue a writ of mandamus.

Another important point discussed by the Court is that a reference under S. 12 (5) is a
reference under S. 10, since the government will not have the power to prohibit a strike or
lockout under S. 12 (5). Therefore the power under S. 12 (5) is a reference to S. 10

3. Karnal Leather Karamchari Sanghatan v Liberty Footwear- The Publication of an arbitration

agreement under S. 10(3A) of the IDA by the government is mandatory. However the period
of one month is directory. However, the award must be published within a reasonable time.

4. Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. V Industrial Tribunal Haryana – The government
can can change its mind and refer a dispute after initially refusing to refer it. Merely because
the government rejects an initial request for reference, it cannot be said that the industrial
dispute has ceased to exist. The dispute may continue to exist and if the government is of
the opinion that it is expedient to refer the dispute, it may do so.
 The SC also ruled that the language or format in which the demand was couched is hardly
decisive of the matter.

Also, retrenchment under S. 25 F cannot be disguised under S. 25 FFF.

5. Rohtas Industries Ltd v. Rohtas Industries Staff- Though this judgment is not in the syllabus,
it is important for the following reasons

· Even if a strike is illegal, workers do not have to compensate the management for the
loss of industrial productivity. Neither is there any such obligation enshrined in the
Industrial Disputes Act.
· Indian Courts cannot always rely upon the principles of common law and equity in
relation to labour law developed by English Courts since circumstances between the
two societies differ.
· An appeal can lie under Art. 226 from the decision of arbitrator under Section 10A.
An arbitrator under Section 10A falls within the rainbow of statutory tribunals
amendable to judicial review.

6. Secretary, Indian Tea Association v Ajit Kumar Barat and Others- Echoed CP Sarathy to the
limited extent based on the facts here that the respondent was not a workman. However,
this case also raises the question of whether if a workman performs administrative or
managerial tasks, he is excluded from the purview of the IDA.

7. Indian Overseas Bank, Anna Salai v P. Ganesan and Delhi and Cloth and General Mills-

Criminal proceedings and an internal enquiry can carry on simultaneously unless the criminal
proceedings involve a grave nature and complicated questions of law and fact. The standard
of proof and objectives of both sets of proceedings is different and internal proceedings may
deal with some matter beyond the scope of criminal proceedings.

8. Cox and Kings v Their Workmen-

If a reference on a dispute by the government to an industrial tribunal does not adjudicate

the matter on merits, then a second reference within a period of one year is valid. If the
decision on the first reference does not “adjudicate” the dispute, then it is not an award
under the IDA.

9. Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers Union-

The ordinary law of Master and Servant is modified by virtue of S. 33 of the IDA. While there
is no power to suspend unless there is an express clause to that effect, an employee can
suspend a worker pending confirmation of dismissal under S. 33 of the IDA. This is the case
even if there is no express power to suspend. Industrial law is not bound by the same
limitations as commercial law, in order to protect industrial peace or legitimize trade union
activities. However, this judgment also ruled that workers are not entitled to a subsistence
allowance during the period of suspension.

10. Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki v Presiding Officer and Ram Lakhan v Presiding Officer- Overruled
the Hotel Imperial Judgment to the extent that subsistence allowance must be paid to
workers during the period of suspension pending confirmation of dismissal under S. 33. If
 the dismissal is not accepted by the tribunal, worker will be reinstated with back wages or
any amount decided by the tribunal. Not paying a subsistence allowance will vitiate the
proceedings since it will be difficult for a worker to defend himself.

1. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v B . Karunakar and Ors. – This judgment

revolved around an amendment to Article 311 of the Constitution in 1976. The amendment
states that after an internal enquiry has been conducted by one authority and a penalty
imposed by another authority, it shall not be necessary to give the person any opportunity of
making representation on the penalty proposed.
Therefore the question arose that where the enquiry authorities and the penalty authorities are
different, whether the employee accused of misconduct has the right to defend himself on the
penalty proposed.
The Court held as follows:
When the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right
to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its
conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges
levelled against him. This is a part of natural justice.
The Court also held that, by virtue of the 42nd amendment, what is dispensed with is the
opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed and not of the opportunity of
making representation on the report of the enquiry officer. Therefore, the employee can still
make a representation on the proposed penalty before the disciplinary officer arrives at a
conclusion on the innocence or guilt of the employee on the basis of the enquiry officer’s
report.

2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. V Deen Dayal Sharma- For an
infringement of standing orders, the civil court’s jurisdiction is barred unless the suit is based
on a violation of the principles of common law or constitutional provisions or other grounds.
Otherwise, the jurisdiction of the labour court will prevail.

3. Tata Oil Mills v Workmen- The relevant standing orders provided that the term “misconduct”
shall be deemed to mean and include, inter alia, drunkenness, fighting , riotous or disorderly
or indecent behaviour within or without the factory . In this case, the assault took place at a
considerable distance from the factory, but was because of a conflict over the incentive
bonus scheme. The court held that the assault was a violation of the standing orders.

4. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors. – The
limitation of the right to representation of a delinquent is justified. The right to
representation is available to the delinquent only to extent specifically provided in the
service rules . The provision in the draft standing orders that the workman was only
permitted to be represented by a fellow workman of the same establishment was neither
unreasonable nor unfair and was in consonance with the model standing orders which
permitted representation of the delinquent by the member of the union of which the
delinquent was a member.

5. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. V Workmen and Anr- Case based primarily on whether
internal enquiry was conducted properly. (Please read judgment).

6. Rohtak and Hissar Districts Electric Supply Co. Ltd v. State of UP- The following points to be
noted

· When the employees have not formed a proper union shows that they are not
organised enough, therefore their consent cannot have a decisive significance in
certification proceedings.
 · Whether standing orders should include both gratuity and PF would depend on the
financial capacity of the employer.

7. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v Dilipkumar Nadkarni- If the presenting officer
appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, then the employee also has the
right to be represented by a lawyer.

8. Management , Shahdara v. S.S. Railway Workers Union- Modification of Standing Orders-

Case based primarily on facts. (Please read judgment including the objective of the 1956
amendment to the Act). Standing orders must be fair and reasonable.

9. Crescent Dyes and Chemicals and Ltd.- The question which came up in this appeal is whether
a delinquent is entitled to be represented by an office bearer of another trade union , who is
not a member of a recognised or unrecognised trade union functioning within the
undertaking in which the delinquent is employed. The Court ruled in the negative, based on
the relevant standing orders.

10. Depot Managar, A.P.S. R. T.C v Mohd Yousef Miya- Whether a Criminal Trial and Internal
Enquiry can be held at the same time depends on the facts and circumstances of every case.
(Please read facts ).

11. Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd- (Same as above)

12. Debotosh Pal Choudhury- Internal enquiry held in accordance with proper procedure.
(Please read facts).

1. Rama Pandey v UOI- Commissioning mother is the legal mother and is entitled to maternity
leave/ child care leave under the relevant rules. To curtail commissioning mother’s
entitlement to leave would work to her detriment as well as that of the child.

2. Pooja Jignesh Doshi v State of Maharashtra and Hema Vijay Menon v State of Maharashtra-
On the same lines as the judgment above.

3. Mini KT. V Divisional Manager, LIC- A lady employee is entitled to leave on account of
compelling family circumstances which includes the disability of a child. Employers must
provide for such circumstances.

4. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Female Workers Muster Role- Muster role (daily wage)
workers who have completed more than three years of service are entitled to maternity
benefits same as regular workers.

5. Radhakishan Ramnath v State of Bombay- Interpretation of General Clauses Act.

Unamended Maternity Benefits Act took into account the amended definition of Factory in
the Factories Act, 1948.

6. Anshu Rani v State of UP- Case based primarily on facts. Please read case.

7. Neera Mathur v LIC- Lady candidate cannot be asked uncomfortable and delicate questions
about her pregnancy and the real reason for the unjustified dismissal was her pregnancy and
not the quality of her work.
8. UOI v Asiya Begum-The delivery of twins after having one child amounts to two deliveries
and not one delivery. The Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules apply only if the claimant has
not more than two children.

9. B. Shah v Labour Court, Coimbatore- Wages under Section 5 (1) of the MBA include wages
for everyday of the week, including Sunday. A week means 7 days.

10. K. Chandrika v. Indian Red Cross Society- Case based on facts/S. 12 of the MBA/

11. Ram Bahadur Thakur v Chief Inspector of Plantations- Half days can be counted as full days
for computing the period of 160 days as contemplated in S. 5(2) of the Act.

1. General Manager BEST v Mrs. Agnes- This case discussed the concept
of Notional Extension of Employment under Section 3(1) of the Act. The Court held that
under Section 3(1) of the Act, the injury must be caused to the workman by an accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment. However, employment does not
necessarily end when the “down tool” signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual
workshop where he is working. There is a notional extension as both the entry and exit by
time and space. In the present case, it applied to the BEST Bus service and the driver who
travelled home on the BEST bus after finishing his duties. His employment required him to
travel on the BEST bus.

2. Saurashtra Salt Manufacturing Co. v Bai Valu Raja and Others- A workman is not in the
course of his employment from the moment he leaves home and is on his way to work. He
certainly is in the course of his employment if he reaches the place of work or a point or area
which comes within the theory of notional extension, outside of which the employer is not
liable to pay compensation for any accident happening to him. The facts and circumstances
of every case will have to examined very carefully in order to determine whether the
accident arose out of and in course of the employment of a workman, keeping in view at all
times, the theory of notional extension.

3. Kerala State Electricity Board v Valsala – Post the 1995 amendment, the relevant date for
determining compensation should be the date of the accident and not the date of
adjudication.

4. Jaya Biswal and Others v Branch Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co- Negligence of
the deceased employee does not disentitle his dependants from claiming compensation
under the Act. In the instant case, the deceased was on his way to deliver goods during the
course of employment when he met with the accident. The act to get back on the moving
truck was just an attempt to regain control of the truck, which given the situation, any
reasonable person would have tried to do. Therefore it was in the course of employment.

5. Regional Director, ESI Corporation v Francis De Costa- The injury was caused by an accident
while the employee was going to his place of employment on a bicycle . He was hit by a lorry
belonging to his own employers. The injury was held to be not in the course of employment.
The injury must be caused by the employment per se.

6. Roshan Deen v Preeti Lal- (case based primarily on facts and Section 17 of ECA which
declares any agreement where the workman relinquishes any right to get compensation
from the employer for personal injury as null and void.)
7. Rita Devi v New India Assurance- This matter was decided under the MV Act. Murder can
also be an “accident” arising out of the use of motor vehicle/employment (depending on the
facts and circumstances of every case).

8. Mackinnon Mackenzie v Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak- The words “ arising out of employment”
are understood to mean that “ during the course of employment, injury has resulted from
some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to
the master, it is reasonable to believe that the workman would not have otherwise
suffered.”