NDLI: Lokmatnewspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankar Prasad

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Industrial Disputes Act conciliation proceeding
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) 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:Industrial Disputes Act., 1947 : Sections 12(4) 20(2)(b), 33(1) and 33(1)(b) - Conciliation proceedings - Discharge of workman - During pendency of - Without permission from Conciliation Officer - Conciliation proceedings failed and investigation closed at 4.35 p.m. - Management discharged workman under S.25-F immediately at 5 p.m. on the very same day without permission from Conciliation Officer - Validity - Held, Conciliation proceedings continue even after closure of investigation under S. 12(4) - Such proceedings are deemed to be closed when the failure report under S. 12(4) reaches the appropriate Government - Closure of investigation does not mean conclusion of conciliation proceedings - Proceedings which are not concluded are pending and proceedings which are pending cannot be said to be concluded - In the circumstances of the case, S.33(1) is violated since conciliation proceedings were pending when the workman was discharged - hence, penal liability under S.31(1) is attracted.Section 9-A and Schedule IV Item 10 - Conditions of service - Change of - Notice of - Rationalisation, standardisation or improvement of plant or technique - Introduction of - Employer installed two photo-type composing machines initially on an experimental basis but later on a permanent basis - No prior notice was issued to workmen under S.9-A before introduction of new scheme - This rendered some workmen in hand-composing department as surplus - Subsequently, notice under S. 9-A was issued stating that due to installation of the new machines no work could be given to these workmen and, therefore, they were being discharged - Held : If there is likelihood of retrenchment of workmen no new scheme can be introduced without issuance of prior notice under S. 9-A - Introduction of such new scheme by itself would amount to alteration of conditions of service of workmen to their prejudice - Notice under S. 9-A prior to introduction of such scheme is a condition precedent - Non-compliance with S.9-A renders change of conditions of service void ab initio - Issuance of notice after introduction of new scheme and discharging the surplus workmen is violative of S. 9-A - But if the proposed scheme is not likely to displace any existing workmen Item 10 of Sch. IV not attracted - Installation of new machines amounts to rationalisation, standardisation, or improvement of plant or technique within the meaning of Item 10 of Sch. IV - Therefore, there is change of condition of service from manual to mechanical working - Hence, prior notice under S.9-A is mandatory before installation of the new machines or before they become operative - Discharge order of workmen being founded upon such illegal notice, set aside.Conditions of service - Change of - Introduction of new machines - Issuance of notice prior to - Purpose of - Held : If dispute regarding introduction of such new machines is referred to competent court for adjudication that court can decide whether the scheme is justified or is violative of S. 9-A - Also the court can decide whether retrenchment as a result of the new scheme is illegal and order reinstatement of workmen with back wages if such retrenchment is illegal.Maharashtra (Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices) Act. 1971.Schedule IV Item 1 - Unfair labour practice - "Discharge" and "dismissal" - Connotation of - Held : The word "discharge" has wider connotations comprising of punitive as well as simpliciter discharge - But the word "dismiss" is purely an order of penalty and that too of an extreme type - Discharge and dismissal cover different types of situations and circumstances under which they are passed - Principles of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis cannot be invoked in connection with Item 1 Sch. IV so that discharge may be construed as dismissal - Service Law.Schedule IV Items 1 (a) to (g) - Discharge or dismissal - Burden of proof - Held : On the aggrieved employee to first show that he is discharged on dismissed from service and that such an order attracts any of the clauses (a) to (g) of Item 1 Sch. IV.Schedule IV Items 1 (a), (d) and (f) - Applicability - Victimisation Employer installed two photo-type machines rendering some workmen in hand-composing department surplus - Such workmen transferred to another unit of employer where hand-composing department existed - But workmen refused - Notice under S.9-A of I.D. Act issued to such workmen - Conciliation proceedings commenced but closed at 4.35 p.m. due to failure - Employer discharged said workmen on the very same day at 5 p.m. - Held : "Victimisation" under Cl. (a) not established - Lack of good faith on the part of employer also not made out so as to attract Cl.(b) - Discharge also not on patently false reasons under Cl.(d) - However, employer acted with undue haste in discharging the workmen which amounted to unfair labour practice under Cl.(d).Back wages - Quantum of - Factors to be considered - Workman's retrenchment held illegal - But he could not be reinstated as he had already superannuated - Employer held guilty of unfair labour practice under Item 1 Cl.(j) of Sch. IV of the Maharashtra Act - No effort made to ascertain about gainful employment of workman - During conciliation proceedings workman's union suggested compensation @ 4 months' wages for each completed year of service but such suggestion rejected by employer - Held : In the circumstances of the case, such retrenched workman entitled to 1/3rd of back wages for each completed year of service.Constitution of India, 1950.Articles 226 and 227 - High Courts - Letters Patent Appeal - Maintainability of - Writ petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 averred that Labour Court and Industrial Court committed serious error of law resulting in miscarriage of justice and infraction of fundamental rights - It was prayed in the writ petition to call for the record and proceedings and after perusal thereof to quash and set aside the orders of Labour Court and Industrial Court in revision - Single Judge dismissed the writ petition - Held : Writ petition sought writ of certiorari under Art. 226 - Single Judge considered writ petition under Art. 226 also - Therefore, it cannot be said that Single Judge dismissed the writ petition only under Art. 227 - If Single Judge exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 LPA is maintainable but not if jurisdiction is exercised under Art. 227 - When petition is filed both under Arts. 226 and 227 and it is dismissed on merits, it should be treated as one filed under Art. 226 so that the petitioner is entitled of file LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court.High Courts - Letters Patent Appeal - Cl. 15 - Jurisdiction of - Held : Division Bench of High Court has jurisdiction to correct patent errors of law committed by Courts below - If it does not do so it fails to exercise jurisdiction on its part.Interpretation of Statutes :legal fiction - Effect of - Held : Full effect of legal fiction has to be given for fructifying the purpose for which it is created.Subsidiary Rules - Noscitur a sociis - Principle - Applicability of - Held : Applicable when two words in a statute are employed in the same sense or have analogous meaning - The word "discharge" does not have the same meaning as the word "dismiss" and, therefore, the principle not applicable.Subsidiary Rules - Ejusdem generis - Principle - Applicability of - Held : Applicable if a particular word is followed by a general word - The principle does not apply to a converse case i.e. where a genera word such as "discharge" is followed by a particular word such as "dismiss".Words and Phrases:"Discharge", "dismiss", "victimisation", "not in good faith", "patently false reasons" and "undue haste" - Meaning of - In the context of Sch. IV items 1 (a), (b) (d) and(f) of the Maharashtra (recognition of Trade Unions & prevention of Unfair Labour Practices) Act, 1971.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar
Neutral Citation	1999 INSC 279
Petitioner	Lokmatnewspapers Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent	Shankar Prasad
SCR	[1999] 3 S.C.R. 907
Judgement Date	1999-07-19
Case Number	3826

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

Lokmatnewspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankar Prasad

Please Log-in to view this content

Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Avon Services (production Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana Faridabad & Ors .

Hindustan General Electrical Corporation Ltd. Vs. Visw Anath Prasad and Another

Management of Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Rajulu

India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dharam Singh & Anr.

Binny Ltd Vs. Workmen and Anr.

U.p.s.r.t.c. Ltd. Vs. Sarada Prasad Misra and Anr.

Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen

Shukla Manseta Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen Employed Under It

Lokmatnewspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankar Prasad

Lokmatnewspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankar Prasad

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Avon Services (production Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana Faridabad & Ors .

Hindustan General Electrical Corporation Ltd. Vs. Visw Anath Prasad and Another

Management of Aurofood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Rajulu

India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dharam Singh & Anr.

Binny Ltd Vs. Workmen and Anr.

U.p.s.r.t.c. Ltd. Vs. Sarada Prasad Misra and Anr.

Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen

Shukla Manseta Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen Employed Under It

Lokmatnewspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankar Prasad