TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1963 (4) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or compensation ? List 'A' consisted of 29 workmen while list 'B' consisted of 12 workmen. The genesis of the dispute as to the suspended workmen was this according to the case of the appellant. The workmen of the weaving department of the appellant commenced slow down from October 28, 1957 in spite of the warning given by the appellant. On November 3, 1957, doffers of carding refused to work on new machines. The workmen of loose godown and folding section started slow down from October 27, 1957 and November 4, 1957 respectively. On November 23, 1957, the workmen of the spinning department adopted slow down tactics and indulged in other subversive activities and left their respective machines in groups rendering the work in backward and forward processes idle. As a result of this conduct of the workmen for a period of about four weeks, the appellant had to lay-off a large number of workmen without compensation. Then on December 3, 1957, the workmen of dye house and printing department went on an illegal stay-in-strike. In the first week of December, 1957, the workmen of blow room and carding went on strike. On December 9, the strike was commenced in the engineering department, c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt or compensation arose. This claim of the appellant was disputed by the respondents and therefore we find this dispute being referred for adjudication in the second 'term of reference. We shall first deal with the matter relating to suspension of the twenty-nine workmen in list 'A' to the order of reference. It may be mentioned that though in annexure 'A' to the agreement there were thirty workmen, the reference was made only with respect to twenty-nine, as it is said that one of the workmen out of 30 had died by the time the reference came to be made. Further out of the 29 workmen with which the first term of reference was concerned, the respondents gave up the case of five of the workmen. The tribunal therefore dealt with the case of the remaining 24. These 24 workmen were divided by the tribunal into five groups. The first group consisted of two workmen, the second group of five workmen, the third group of 13 workmen, the fourth group of two workmen and the fifth group of two workmen. Learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed the appeal with respect to six workmen in groups I, IV and V, and we need not therefore consider the order of the tribunal with respect to these....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is urged that all these five workmen were charged with other misconduct also and the tribunal did not consider the evidence with respect to other misconduct at all and gave no finding thereon and so the case of these five workmen at any rate should be. remanded to the tribunal for considering the evidence on the other charges against them. Now the appellant relied on an extract from two registers, Exs. AA and AA-1, which had been produced before the tribunal in this connection and this extract was set out in the special leave petition. The respondents, however, contended that, what was set out in the special leave petition was not an extract at all from Exs. AA and AA-1. On the other hand it was said to be a spurious document prepared to mislead this Court at the time of the admission of the appeal and so it was urged that the leave should be revoked. This extract related to four workmen, namely, Paharaj, Shankdardas, Gangadhar and Babaji, and was with respect to spindle stoppage from November 10 to 23, 1957. In view of the charge made by the respondents, the original registers were sent for and have been examined by us and we have come to the conclusion that the extract given in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made out. It seems to us that the reasons given by the tribunal for holding that go-slow by these five workmen had not been proved cannot be said to be inadequate for the purpose of coming to the conclusion which it did. We may only note one reason which is given by the tribunal and which shows that everything was not all right in the appellant company in this matter. Though the charge-sheets to these workmen of the spinning department were given on November 17, IS and 22, it is remarkable that in the written-statement of the appellant before the tribunal the case made out was that the workmen of the spinning department adopted slow down tactics and indulged in other subversive activities from November 23, 1957. This seems to be surprising statement to make in the face of the charges given to these five workmen and can only .show that the appellant did not really know what the correct facts were. It is further remarkable that in the application under s. 33 (1) (b) which was made four months after the written-statement of the appellant had been filed the same thing was repeated and it was said that the workers of the spinning department adopted go-slow tactics on November 23 and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut goslow and the tribunal also came to the conclusion that those workmen were guilty_ of go-slow. It seems therefore that nobody worried about any other charges before the tribunal and that is how the tribunal seems to have confined its conclusion only to the charge of go-slow, even where no such charge sheet was given to the workmen. On the whole, however, we do not think that any case is made out for remand for consideration of other charges against these five workmen, for the tribunal seems to have considered all the evidence and did not think it worthy of acceptance. In the circumstances the appeal with respect to these five workmen in group II must fail. Then we come to the four workmen in group III whose names we have already mentioned. These workmen were charged with having incited on and from various dates in October 1957 their co-workers to slow down work. The entire evidence against these workmen was considered by the tribunal and it did not place any reliance on it for one main reason. In the case of Gulzarali the tribunal found that there was no written report against him as was the case with respect to others, and in the case of the other three the tribunal found tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titled to any wages or compensation for the suspension period does not apply to workmen who remained suspended under cl. (9), and the reason given by the tribunal for this view is that cl. (7) only applied to those workmen who were allowed to resume duty in the first clause of the agreement. This view of the tribunal has been challenged by the appellant and it is contended that the seventh clause applies even to workmen who remained suspended under cl. (9) and therefore in view of cl. (7) such workmen were not entitled to any compensation whatsoever for the entire period of their suspension whether before December 23, 1957 or thereafter. We agree with the contention of the appellant that cl. (7) applies to all suspended workmen whether they went back to work according to the first clause of the agreement or remained suspended according to cl. (1) (b) set out above. But as we read this agreement we are of opinion that cl. (7) read along with cl. (8) refers only to suspension upto the date of the agreement and not to suspension thereafter. Clause (7) says that the suspended workmen shall not raise any dispute or ,make any claim with regard to the suspension period or lay off period ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od of suspension upto the date of agreement and there is nothing in it which would induce us to hold that it must apply to the future also. So far as the future is concerned it is cl. (9) which must wholly apply and that clause envisaged inquiry and disciplinary action and the consequence thereof depending upon the inquiry going one way or the other must also be envisaged by it in the absence of any provision about the future in this agreement. If the intention was that the workmen who remained suspended under cl. (9) would get no wages for the future, even if they were fully exonerated after an inquiry under that clause we should have found a specific provision that to effect in cl. (9) itself. We are therefore of opinion that cl. (7) refers to the period up to the date of the agreement including the period of grace given to the workmen in cl. (1) in order to join their duties and not to the future. In this view of the matter the tribunal was not unjustified in granting wages for the suspension period after the date of this agreement to those whom it reinstated. The contention of the appellant in this behalf must fail with respect to those reinstated. We shall consider the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is given an opportunity to cross-examine him. To require in that case that the contents of the previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word, and sentence by sentence, is to insist on bare technicalities, and rules of natural justice are matters not of form but of substance. In our opinion they arc sufficiently complied with when previous statements given by witnesses are read over to them, marked on their admission, copies thereof given to the person charged, and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine them. It is urged on behalf-of the appellant that rules of natural justice are the same whether they apply to inquries under Art. 311 or to domestic inquiries by managements relating to misconduct by workmen. It may be accepted that rules of natural justice do not change from tribunal to tribunal. Even so the purpose of rules of natural justice is to safeguard the position of the person against whom an inquiry is being conducted so that he is able to meet the charge laid against him properly. Therefore the nature of the inquiry and the status of the person against whom the inquiry is being held will have some bearing on what should be the minimum requirem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we mean that it should be given at least two days before the inquiry is to begin. If this is not done and yet the witnesses are not examined-in-chief fully at the inquiry., we do not think that it can be said that principles of natural justice which provide that the person charged should have an adequate opportunity of defending himself are complied with in the case of a domestic inquiry in an industrial matter. In the present case all that had happened was that the prepared statements were read over to the workmen charged and they were asked then and there to cross-examine the witnesses. They were naturally unable to do so and in the circumstances we agree with the tribunal though for different reasons-that the enquiry did not comply with the principles of natural justice. The order of the tribunal therefore holding that the inquiries were vitiated by the disregard of rules of natural justice is correct. We may add however that inspite of the above finding the tribunal permitted termination of the service of four of these five workmen and reinstated only one. We shall deal with this aspect of the matter further when considering the appeal of the workmen. Turning now to the appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an undercurrent in the discussion as if Hanif was guilty of go-slow himself. Even so the tribunal appears to have found him guilty of inciting other workers and this would clearly be misconduct under standing order No. 22 (k), for which a workman Could be dismissed. In the circumstances we arc of opinion that there is no reason for our interference with the order of the tribunal in the case of Hanif. The next workman is Narayan. He was also charged with having incited other workers to slow down work. In his case also the tribunal apparently came to the conclusion that he took part in deliberate slow-down, but during the discussion in the award, the tribunal started by saying that he was charged with inciting other workers to slow down work and referred to the evidence which showed that Narayan had gone round in the department and asked the workmen to work two looms instead of four and to give low production. This evidence was apparently accepted by the tribunal, though at the end of the discussion the tribunal did say that Narayan took part in deliberate 'go-slow tactics. Though therefore the conclusion of the tribunal with respect to Narayan seems to suggest as if he was dismiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Singh went round instigating the weavers not to work more than two looms, though they were expected to work on four looms. This evidence was apparently accepted by the tribunal, though it expressed its conclusion by saying that Bhagwan Singh had committed the misconduct of deliberate go-slow tacticts. Here again, we are of opinion that the conclusion of the tribunal has been expressed in inappropriate words, though in fact it did find that Bhagwan Singh was guilty of inciting other workers to slow down. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal with respect to Bhagwan Singh. Next we come to Ram Ekbal. His case is exactly similar to that of Bhagwan Singh and the evidence is also exactly the same. In the circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal in his case either. Next we come to Mangroo. The charge against him was of incitement of other workers to slow down work. In his case also the evidence was that he went round in the weaving-shed asking the weavers to work two looms instead of four looms. This evidence was apparently accepted by the tribunal, though it expressed its conclusion inappropriately to the effect that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' Union ([1960] 1 S.C.R. 476). No provision in the standing orders has been brought to our notice which entities the appellant in this case to suspend the workman without payment of wages. But, as held in The Hotel Imperial's case ([1960] 1 S.C.R. 476), where under s. 33 of the Act the right of the employer to dismiss an employee except with the permission of the industrial tribunal, was taken away, it would be open to the employer to suspend the workman pending inquiry and permission of the tribunal. In such circumstances 'such a term in the contract of employment would be implied and the result would be that if the tribunal granted the permission, the suspended Contract would come to an end and there would be no further obligation on the part of the employer to pay any wages after the date of suspension. If on the other hand, the permission was refused, the workmen would be entitled to a] I their wages from the date of suspension. It follows therefore that in the case of those workmen who have been ordered to be reinstated there can be no justification for depriving them of their wages from the date of the suspension which in the case of the workmen in list 'A' to the reference, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the union regarding disciplinary action taken or to be taken by it against the workmen and that if the parties failed to reach a settlement, the matter would be referred for adjudication. The contention on behalf of the respondents is that this clause clearly contemplated inquiry by the management followed by disciplinary action and as the appellant held no inquiry whatsoever and straightaway applied when the dispute was referred for adjudication, for permission to dismiss these workmen they would be entitled to full wages till the date of the enforcement of the award. On the other hand it is contended on behalf of the appellant that though cl. (9) envisaged inquiry and disciplinary proceedings against the suspended workmen it also provided that the management would try to reach an amicable settlement with the union, failing which there would be a reference to adjudication. It is said that in view of this the appellant held no inquiry. Particularly, the factory manager stated that he had discussions with the secretary of the union over the matter of these workmen and no settlement could be reached. He also stated that the management wanted to hold inquiries but the Secretary of th....