TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (2) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ruary 4, 1960, most of the workmen in the appellants' factory were members of the All India Chhata Karkhanna Muzdoor Union. Sometime prior to February 1960 they became members of the rival union, the Calcutta Chhata Karkhana Muzdoor Union. The said eight workmen and two others, however, refused to join the rival union and that resulted in bad feelings between the two unions. On February 4, 1960, there was trouble in the factory when a procession of workers entered into the factory and began to throw brickbats and other missiles. The appellants did not then take any action presumably because the trouble was amongst the workmen themselves owing to the said union rivalry. However, when the said eight workmen together with the said two others (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He held that the decision of the Labour Court that it was not justified could not in the circumstances of the case be said to be wrong. But on the question as to what relief the workmen were entitled, he relied on the Punjab National Bank v. All India Punjab National Bank Employees Federation where it was held that though the general rule in cases of unjustified dismissal was reinstatement, "nevertheless, in unusual or exceptional cases the tribunal may have to consider whether, in the interest of the industry itself, it would be desirable or expedient not to direct reinstatement". The petition, according to the learned Judge, was that the appellants dismissed the eight workmen owing to the attitude taken by the majority of the workmen. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t put the question of reinstatement in issue, nor raised any specific objection against the normal rule of reinstatement The Bench held that in the absence of any such specific contention, the Labour Court appeared to have thought that the dispute among the workers was a passing phase which would in course of time subside No plea was made before it that reinstatement might result in disturbance of industrial peace, a plea if satisfactorily proved, might have induced the Labour Court not to grant re-instatement. 6. The Division Bench also noted that the Labour Court was not unconscious of that the work in the factory was seasonal and also of the contention of the appellants that the workmen had no lien on the employment for the next seaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt firm to give work to the concerned workmen amounted to a wrongful dismissal. Such a question could not have raised at this stage because it was not raised before the Letters Patent Bench. We, therefore, refrain from going into that question. 8. It is well established that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court does not sit in appeal over the orders of industrial tribunals. Its jurisdiction is supervisory, and therefore, it interferes if the jurisdiction conferred on such tribunals is improperly, or in noncompliance of well-established principles, exercised or for any such other person. 9. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Roy we recently, held after considering the previous case, law, that though the normal rule....