The Calcutta Jute Mfg. Workers Union v. Calcutta Jute Mfg. Workers Union

1961. November 16. The Judgment of tho Court was <le!ivt1red by SARKAR, J.-This is an appeal against the a.ward of an industrial tribunal holding that the dismiBSal of two workmen by tho appellant was unjustified and directing their reinstatement. The appellant has a factory for ma.king yarn out of jute. There were, among others, two d1>part­ ments in the factory, namely the Spinning and the Batching departments. The workmen con~erned were Ramdhani and Sita.ram and they were emp­ loyed in the Spinning Department. The prelimi· nary stage of the preparation of yarn takes plaoe in the Batching Department which in an unfinished stage is passed on to the Spinning Department for final pror.essing and it is thereafter used for weaving. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 485 The appellant's case is that on March 22, 1958, a Roving Sardar of the Batching Department called Jagabandhu informed Ghosh, who was in charge of that department, that Ramdhani was throwing away as unusable some workable roves (slivers of jute drawn out and slightly twisted) which came from the Batching Department to the Spinning Department. Ghosh thereupon went to the Spin­ ning Department and found that the report of the Roving Sardar was correct. He then asked the Roving Sardar to collect the roves thrown away by Ramdhani for being placed before the appropriate authority for inspection. Ghosh obviously intended to make a complaint against Ramdhani's work to the superior authority. At this Ramdhani, who was a Sardar in the Spinning Department, tried to prevent the Roving Sardar from collecting the roves. On Ghosh intervening, Ramdhani took a menacing attitude and abused him in filthy langu­ age. Soon, Sitaram, another Sardar of the Spin­ ning Department, who had nothing to do with the matter, came there and took the side of Ramdhani. He also abused Ghosh and further threatened him with violence. Ghosh complained to the Management of the factory about the conduct of Ramdhani and Sitaram and the Management thereupon served charge-sheets on them. The charge-sheets in substance stated that Ramdhaui and Sitaram had used abusive and filthy language and threatened to assault Ghosh and they were, therefore, guilty of misconduct under Standing Order No. 14 (c) (i} of the Standing Orders of the appellant. That Standing Order is in these terms : 14(c)-The following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct :- (i )- --wilful insubordination, or disobedi­ ence, whether alone or in combination with 1961 Th< Calculta .lut1 Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ca/cul/a .Juie Mfz, Workers' Un1·on Sarkar J. IPGl T"4 C.ladta Ju11 Mfg. C.. Ltd. •• Calcutta Ju11 Mft· lVorA-trs' Union Sarkar J. 486 SUPREME COUHT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. othm·B, of any luwful 01· reasonable order of a superwr. Pursuant to the charl(e·shcets the avpcllant's Labour Officer held an enquiry and came to the following findings : "Both Sitaram and Ramdhani accepted the statement of Jagabandhu the only witness of the incident. J agabandhu's statement clearly proves the offence of insubordination charg<'d against Sitaram and Hamdhani. These two workmen could not vlace any witness or evidence by whkh it could be satisfied that they were not guilty. The refusal of acl'q>tancc of charge sheet is also another misconduct on the part of both these two workmen. Moreover, they not only refused to accept charge sheet to explain their conduct but committed another very serious offence of fomenting and causing other Sardars to stage a ~tay in strike for two days on 24th and :!5th March, 1958, and thereby caused serious dislocation of work. The situation created by this stay in strike WllB so tense that it even threatened the whole work to be dislocated and closure of the entire Mill. From Jagabandhu'~ statement and its acceptance by l{amdhani and Sitaram and from their subsequent conduct I therefore find them guilty of the charge of insubordination and also activitiPs subversive to discipline." The appellant thereupon passed the following order: "Further to the charge Bheet it;Bued to you on 26-3·58. I hnve found you guilty.of misconduct under Rule 14-C(I) of the certifi. ed standing orders. My decision is that you (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 487 should be dismissed and I hereby dismiss yo11 from the services of the company." The Union, the respondent in this appeal, then raised an industrial dispute as to whether the dismissal of Ramdhani and Sitaram was justified and this was referred by the Government to the tribunal resulting in the award earlier mentioned. It was conceded by the appellant before tho tribunal that Ghosh was not the supervisor of the Spinning Department where Ramdhani and Sita­ ram worked and was not, therefore, a direct superior of these workmen. In view of this admis­ sion by the appellant the tribunal observed that if Ramdhani and Sitaram disobeyed any orders of Ghosh they could not be held guilty of insubordi­ nation and disobedience within the Standing Order as Ghosh was not their superior. It came to the conclusion that the decision of the enquiring officer of the appellant that these workmen were guilty of misconduct mentioned in Standing Order No.14(c)(i) was, therefore, basioaJly erroneous and could not be upheld. It thereupon directed the reinstate­ ment of the dismissed workmen. It further held that the appellant had been influenced by the finding of the enquiry officer that the workmen con­ cerned had refused to accept the charge sheets and had caused a stay in strike. It observed that these offences were not the subject matter of the charge­ sheets and the appellant could not take them into consideration in passing the order of dismissal. The tribunal further observed that the conduct of the workmen was not proper and in that view of the matter refused to direct payment of their wages during the period of their forced unemployment, which period was, however, ordered to be treated as a period of leave without pay. It is against this award that the present appeal has been t~ken. Though the tribunal did not express any opin­ ion as to the finding of fact by the enquiry officer 1961 Tiu CakuJta Jule Mjg. Co. Ltd. v· Calcutta jute Mft· Workers~ Union Sarkar ·J, 19'1. Th. Cak.t14 .T "'' Mf&· Co. Lid. •• c./.tWla J"" Mfg. Wori:as' Union 488 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962j SUPP. of the appellant, it is clear that it accept<>d the same, otherwise it would not have disallowed tl;c workmen their wages for the period of their forced unemployment on the ground that their conduct had not been proper. We have gone through the evidence on the record and we fl'cl not the sligh­ test doubt that the case of the appt'llant was true_ The two workmen had been guilty of tho miscon­ duct imputed to them. '!'he question is whether that mii;cunduct cumc within the Standing Order No.(14)(ci(i). We urc entirely unable to agree with the tribunal that the conduct of the workmen did not amount to wilful insubordination. It is clear to us that the Stand­ ing Order oontcmplates two types of misconduct; one is wilful insubordination and the other is disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. It is obvious that these two constitute different categories of misconduct. If insubordi­ nation, as the tribunal held, was disobe­ dience to the order of an officer directly undn whom tho workmen charged with misconduct worked, then the two categories mentioned in the St&nding Order would have amounted to the s~me misconduct. This obviously cannot he the proper reading of the Standing Order. In our view, in­ subordination would include defiance of persons in authority whether such persons were the direct superiors of the workmen charged or not. It would also include riotous conduct which made it impoBBi· ble for tho higher officers to discharge their duties properly. Mr. Ramamurthi for the Union l!ll.id that insubordination was disobedience to a pres­ cribed rule. We think that even in that sense the workmen were guilty of insubordination. It was clearly an implied rule of the factory that higher officers would not be thwarted and prevented from bringing to th<' notice of the management the waetefulncBB of the workmen causing loss to the (l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 489 employer. This is all that Ghosh was about in this case and this aroused the wrath of the workmen. , Mr. Ramamurthi also said that it waa not a case of wilful insubordination because Ramdhani was entitled to throw away roves which he con­ sidered unworkable as his remuneration depeuded on his out-turn. This contention is wholly unfounded. Ramdhani got weekly wages as he admitted in his own evidence and therefore his wage did not depend on his out-turn. Again the conduot with which ho had been charged was not throwing away the roves but adopting a menacing attitude towards one of the higher officers employed by the appellant. Mr. Ramamurthy further said that the dismi­ ssal was not really on the finding that the workmen had been guilty of insubordination and that the tribunal was justified in holding that the order of ~ dismissal had been induced by the finding of the enquiry officer as to the refusal of the workmen to accept the charge-sheets and causing the stay in strike as no charge in respect of these matters had been preferred against the workmen and the latter had no chance of defending themselves against such a charge. We have earlier set out the order of dismissal. That order does not show that the order of dismissal had been based on any consideration other than the finding on the charge brought against the workmen. In our view, an order of dismissal may be rightly sustained if it is based on a finding on a charge which the workmen concerned had the opportunity of meeting even though in the course of the enquiry other incidental matters had crept in. One cannot take a too legalistic view in these matters. We would also observe that the two matters mentioned in the enquiry officer's report are really connected with the charge and had been mentioned by the enquiry officer only to corrobo­ rate his finding on the charge brought, for i~ was the misconduct mentioned in the charge-sheets 1961 The C.J/cutta Ju.le Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Calcuua Jute Mff!. Work'1s' Union Sarkar J. J!J6J The Calcutta Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. V. Calcultn ,Jui, Mfg. U'01J:vs· Union Sa1kar J. 41!0 SUPHE.ME COURT REl'OR'fS (1962] SLTP. which led to tho workmen refuse to accept the charge-sheets and causing the stay in strike. In­ evitably, those questions would crop up in the en­ quiry and the enquiry officer could legitimately refer to them. They would further Le relevant matters for tle employer's consideration in deciding the punishment to be awarded to the workmen con­ cerned for the breach of tho Standing Order. In any event, there is no reason to think that the order of dismissal was based on consideration of any finding other than that mentioned in the charge sheets. We may refer to N. f{alindi v. Jfjs. 'Tata Locomotive & b'ngineering Co. Ltd. ('), in this connection. llfr. Ramnmurthy also argued that the order of dismissal was really an instance of victimisation and that this is in substance what the tribunal bad found. We are entirely unable to accept this con­ tention. The workmen in their evidence had not suggested that they had been dismiascd by way of victimisation and neither do we think that the tri­ bunal had come to any finding of victimisation. W c, thertfore, think that the order of the tribunal cannot bo upheld. We accordingly sot it aside and hold that the order of dismissal of Ram­ dhani and Sitaram had been properly made by tho appellant. Appeal allowed. (lJ (1961ll 2 L. L. J. ~28.