NDLI: Colour-chem Ltd. Vs. A.l. Alaspurkar and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1971: Schedule IV Item 1(g) Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Labour Law: Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (1 of 1972)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Labour Law:Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Schedule IV Item 1(g)-Unfair labour practice- Scope of-Workman found guilty of major misconduct of sleeping while on duty keeping the machine in a working condition-Held: Sch IV Item 1(g) deals with misconduct of a minor or technical character and does not cover major misconduct, even after taking into account the nature of misconduct or past record of service of the employee if it is found by the court that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charge held proved against the employee-The comma after the words "misconduct of a minor or technical character" cannot be read as "or"-In the circumstances of the case, Sch. IV Item 1(g) not attracted. Schedule IV Item 1(g)-Victimisation-Meaning of-Victimisation in fact and Victimisation in law explained. Schedule IV Item 1(g)-Victimisation-Plant Operators along with 10 mazdoors found sleeping at 3.30 a.m. keeping the machine in a working condition without pouring raw material therein-Delinquent Plant Operators dismissed from service for a major misconduct-Held: Having regard to the nature of misconduct, even if it is a major misconduct, and the past record of the employees, the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate or is such which no reasonable employer would ever impose it in like circumstances-Hence, such a punishment amounts to unfair labour practice of legal victimisation-Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946--Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Misconduct-Workman sleeping while on duty keeping the machine in a working condition-Punishment of dismissal from service-Management raised plea of losing confidence in such workman-Labour Court reinstated workman 3 and 4 with 40% and 50% back wages respectively till the date of award and 100% till actual reinstatement-Held: The work which the workman were doing was not of any confidential nature-Hence, the question of the management losing confidence in the workman does not arise-Punishment of dismissal from service shockingly disproportionate-labour Court quite justified in ordering reinstatement with continuity of service-But in view of the gravity of misconduct the workman deserve to be further punished-Hence, even after the award of the labour Court instead of 100% hack wages only 40% and 50% wages directed to be paid to workman 3 and 4 respectively till actual reinstatement pursuant to present order of the Supreme Court. Interpretation of Statues:Welfare Legislation-Provisions-Two constructions-Possibility of- Held: If two constructions are reasonably possible, that which furthers the policy and object of the Act and which is more beneficial to the employees has to he preferred-But if the provision is capable of only one construction plain meaning has to he given effect to. Words and Phrases :"Victimisation "-Meaning of-In the context of Sch. IV Item 1 (g) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair labour Practices Act, 1971.Respondent nos. 3 and 4 were working in the plant of the appellant-company as Plant Operators. At about 03.30. a.m. when they were on duty in the night shift, the Plant-in-Charge, on a surprise visit, found respondent nos. 3. and 4 and 10 mazdoors as well as the Shift Supervisor sleeping though the machine was kept working. For the said misconduct a domestic enquiry was held after which both these respondents were dismissed from service. Respondent nos. 3. and 4 filed complaints before respondent no. 2- authority under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair labour Practices Act, 1971. The contention of these complainants was that they were victimised and the appellant-management had committed diverse unfair practices as contemplated under Clauses (a), {b), {d), (f) and (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Labour Court held that respondent nos. 3 and 4 had committed misconduct alleged against them. However, the Labour Court found that looking to the nature of the misconduct alleged and proved against the complainants the punishment of dismissal from service was grossly disproportionate and therefore, it amounted to unfair labour practice on the part of the appellant as covered by Clause (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act. As a result the Labour Court passed an order of reinstatement of respondent nos. 3 and 4 with 40% and 50% hack wages respectively till the date of the award of the Labour Court anti thereafter with 100% back wages till reinstatement. The revisional court, namely, the Industrial Court dismissed both the revision applications filed by the appellant anti respondent nos. 3 and 4. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal.On behalf of the appellant-management it was contended that the provisions of Item 1(g) of Schedule IV of the Act would apply only if the misconduct committed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 was a minor misconduct or is of a technical nature; that since the Labour court had found that the misconduct of respondent nos. 3 and 4 was a major misconduct anti, therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in taking the view that the appellant was guilty of unfair labour practice covered by the said clause; that even assuming that the said clause was attracted looking to the nature of the misconduct anti the past record of sen·ice of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 it could not be said that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate; that the misconduct of respondent nos. 3 and 4 had created a situation where the machine was kept working without pouring raw material therein which would have created a hazard with the possibility of an explosion; anti that since the appellant had lost confidence in respondent nos. 3 and 4 compensation could he awarded instead of reinstatement. On behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 it was contented that clause (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act would also cover even major misconduct it for such misconduct the orders of discharge or dismissal were passed by the employer without having regard to the nature of the particular misconduct or the past record of service of the employees; and that this was not a fit case in which compensation could be awarded in lieu of reinstatement as that would spell economic disaster to these workmen who were already out of job since 1983, that is, for more than 14 years. The following points arose for determination by this Court:-1. Whether Clause (g) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act is applicable to the facts of the present case. 2. If not whether the appellant can be said to have been guilty of having committed unfair labour practice as per Clause (a) of Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act on the basis of which the order of the Labour Court as confirmed by the higher courts can be supported.3. Whether the order of reinstatement with back wages as passed by the Labour Court and as confirmed by the higher courts is Justified on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar
Neutral Citation	1998 INSC 67
Petitioner	Colour-chem Ltd.
Respondent	A.l. Alaspurkar And Ors.
SCR	[1998] 1 S.C.R. 663
Judgement Date	1998-02-05
Case Number	510

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Colour-chem Ltd. Vs. A.l. Alaspurkar and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Rajneesh Khajuria Vs. M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. & Anr.

Gangadhar Pillai Vs. M/s. Siemens Ltd.

Nashik Workers Union Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate

Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Association of Engineering Workers

The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971

M/s Savita Chemicals (pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Dyes and Chemical Workers Union and Anr.

Ceat Ltd. Vs. Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar and Ors.

Siemens Ltd. & Another Vs. Siemens Employees Union & Another

Colour-chem Ltd. Vs. A.l. Alaspurkar and Ors.

Colour-chem Ltd. Vs. A.l. Alaspurkar and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Rajneesh Khajuria Vs. M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. & Anr.

Gangadhar Pillai Vs. M/s. Siemens Ltd.

Nashik Workers Union Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. Vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate

Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Association of Engineering Workers

The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971

M/s Savita Chemicals (pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Dyes and Chemical Workers Union and Anr.

Ceat Ltd. Vs. Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar and Ors.

Siemens Ltd. & Another Vs. Siemens Employees Union & Another

Colour-chem Ltd. Vs. A.l. Alaspurkar and Ors.