THE DUNLOP RUBBER CO. v. WORKMEN

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 139; 1964 INSC 256

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR , K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH

Judgment date: 1964-11-10

Case summary

1964 INSC 256. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1964-11-10. THE DUNLOP RUBBER CO. v. WORKMEN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

THE DUNLOP RUBBER CO. v. WORKMEN November 10, 1964 [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J. , K. N. WANCHOO AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ. ] Domestic enquiry-Dismissal of workmen for 'go slow'-Charge not expressly mentioning go slow but referring to Standing Order dealing inter alia with 'go s/ow'-Enquiry officer turning down workmen's request uJ repre8'ntalion through a member of unrecognised union-Enquiry whetlwr vitiated. The appellant company dismissed some workmen after a domestic enquiry holding them guilty on a charge of 'go slow' action. The ..... pondents raised an indwitrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal foun -sheets. They declined to accepted the charge-sheets and were there and then placed under a suspension. The suspended workmen included these twelve workmen ano ten others as already stated. One Mr. P. K. Maitra commenced enquiry into the charges in the presence of Mr. R .. M. Bhandari, an observer.

At the commencement of the enquiry each of the C workmen asked for a representative of Union No. 4145 who waa "conversant with the art of cross-examination" to be present. . Under the Standing Orders of this Company representation could oaly be by a member of a recognised Union but as Union No. 729 was anathema to. the members of Union No. 4145 they would not -• avail of the services of any member of that Union. . They elected D to remain absent except S. R. Sen Gupta who, though their leader; appeared at the enquiry against himself and made a state>-ment clearing himself but took no further part in the enquiry. As a result of the enquiry, which was ex parte, Mr. Maitra held that these workmen were going slow and that they were guilty of the charge brought against them. He recommended the punishment E of dismissal. The Company accordingly ordered their dismissal seeking at the same time the permission of the Tribunal under s.

33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and tendering one month's wages to each workman. Later, the Government of West Bengal took interest in the matter and at the intercession of the Govern- F ment the Company agreed to take back 10 of the workmen Iea. v- . ing it to Union No. 4145 to select the persons who should be taken back. All the workmen of the Banbury Mill were taken back and the 11 workmen of the Dual Auto Mill and Sen Gupta of the Baby Mill remained dismissed. The Tribunal in reaching the conclusion that the dismiss{ll G was improper and that the workmen should be reinstated held that the Company had not really charged the workmen with "go slow" action but had found them guilty of that charge. It held that the Company was showing favours to Union No. 729 and was trying to put down the Union of the- dismissed workmen. The Tribunal, however, held that the stoppage of work by the H .

workm~ amounted to strike as there were proceedings paJding before tlie Tribunal, but since the strike was peaceful and non- DUNLOP RUBBER CO. V, WORKMEN (Hidayatullah, /. ) 10 violent it was only technically illegal. The Tribunal blamed the Company for contributing to the strike by its refusal to shift Raghunandan Das from his place of work. In view of these find-ings the Tribunal held that the punishment of dismissal was not justified and the order now impugned was accordingly passed. The Tribunal was wrong in almost all its conclusions. It was wrong in holding that the workmen were not charged with "go slow" action and therefore could not be dismissed on the finding that they were guilty of "go slow". Under the Standing Orders of the Company "go slow" is a major mis-conduct.

Clauses {Vill) and (XVI) of Standing Order 10 deal with insubordination or dis-obedience or fiiilure whether alone or in combination with others, to carry out any lawful and reasonable or proper order of a Superior (cl. VIII) and engaging or inciting others to engage in irregular or unjustified or illegal strikes; malingering or slow-ing down of work (cl. XVI) . The charge-sheet stated as follows:- "You are hereby asked to show cause why discipli-nary action should not be taken against you for the following misconduct under Operators Standing orders Qauscs lO(VIII) and (XVI). • • • • • • *" The two clauses of Standing Order 10, as pointed out above, deal with insubordination and inter alia with going slow. It was contended before us that the words "go slow" did not figure in thiii charge as they did in the charges against workmen in the Banbury Mill.

It is to be remembered that on January 15, 1960 these workmen had been expressly warned that they were going lllow and that "go slow" action was mis-conduct under cl. IO(XVI) of the Company's Standing Orders for Operators. No doubt Mr. Lobo, who drew up the charge, had not mentioned go ilow in these charges as he had done in the charges framed against the workmen of the Banbury Mill, but it is nevertheless clear that th~e charges refer to go slow and indeed the workmen in their replies to the charge denied that they were going slow. It may be pointed out that Mr. Lobo had stated before the Enquiry Officer that the charge was "go slow''. The log books also showed that from January 12, 1960 against the Dual Auto Mills the remark was "slow work". It is clearly established by the records pro-ducecl that instead of 17 batches 15 batches or less were turned out. at each shift. This proves that there was a deliberate "go [1965J 2 S. C. ll. H.

4 SUPREME COUllT REPORTS slow" no sooner Raghunandan Das left on leave and the Dual Auto Mills came into the exclusive hands of Union No. 4145. 'Ibis Union thought that the opportunity was too good to be wasted to force their depland for increase of wages by the tactics of "go slow". The explanation of the workmen that the mixture received from the Banbury Mill was too cold and had to be reheated before it could be processed in the Dual Auto Mills was false. They attributed the cooling of the mixture to the working of a new machine called the festooner from the 12th of January. It is clear · that this machine was tried for three months before it was put into operation and had worked for three months prior to January 12, 1960 and so such complaint had been made by the workmen. It is possible that the Banbury Mill operators, who were also suspended and dismissed, were cooling the mixture unduly by means of their blower to delay operation.

But whether the Banbury Mill cooled it and the Dual Auto Mills were required to reheat it or the Dual Auto Mills delayed the operations, it is clear that the motivating force behind it was the action of Union No. 4145 to force the hands of the Company in support of their demands. It is sufficient to say that after the new workmen had got trained in the working of the Dual Auto Mills the production again reached the same number of batches and after the figure was -even better though the festooner continued in operation. We are satisfied that the workmen were going slow from January 12, 1960, . r. that the charge of "go slow" was incorporated in the charge-sheet read with the warning letter and that it was fully substantiated. This amounted to mis-conduct under Standing Order No. I 0 and was not a minor offence as contended before us by their learned counsel. The minor offences deal with conduct of a very different kind. .

F The Tribunal was also wrong in thinking that there was a denial of natural justice because the workmen were refused the assistance of a representative of their own Union. Under the Standing Orders it is clearly provided that at such enquiries only a representative of a Union which is registered under the Indian G Trade Union Act and recognised by the Company can· assist. Technically, therefore, the demand of the workmen that they should be represented by their own Union could not be accepted. It has been ruled by this Court in Kalindi & Ors. v. Tata Locomo-tive & Engineering Co. Ltd. (') and Brook Bond India (P) Ltd. v. Subba Raman (2) that there is no right to representation as such H unless the Company by its Standfug Orders recognises such a right. (J)! 1960) 3 S. C. R. 407. (2) [1961J n L. L. J. 417. DUNLOP RUBBER co. v. WORKMEN (Hidayatul/ah, /. ) 145 Refusal to allow representation by any Union unless the Standing · Orders confer that right does not vitiate the proceedings.

It is true that only the rival Union was recognised and there was hosti-lity between the two Unir·ns. The quarrel itself which sparked off the strike was also bt-tween two representatives of the rival Unions. In such circumstances it is idle to expect that these workmen. would have chosen to be represented by a member of the rival Union and the Company might well have considered their demand to be represented by any other workman of their choice. The workmen, however, insisted that the representation should be in the capacity of a representative of their own unrecognised Union. In other worc! _s, they were desiring recognition of their Union in an indirect way. The dispute, therefore, was carried on by these workmen with the twin object of achieving their demand for increased wages and also for the recognition of their Union.

The implication of their demand that they should be represented by a member of their own Union was not lost upon the Company and the refusal to allow representation on these terms cannot be characterised as a denial of natural justice or amounting to unfair play. If the Company had been asked that the workmen wished to be represented by a lt workman of their own choice without the additional qualification about Union No. 4145 it is possible that the Company might have acceded to the request. We think, the Company might have asked the workmen to delete all reference to Union No. 4145 and allowed them to have a representative of their own choice in the speciiil circumstances of this dispute. But we cannot say that the action of the Enquiry Officer was for that reason illegal or amounted to a denial of natural jusμce.

In this connection, we have repeatedly emphasised that in holding domestic enquiries, reasonable oppor-turuty should be given to the delinquent employees to meet the charge framed against them and it is desirable that at such an enquiry the employ should be given liberty to represent their case by persons of their choice, if there is no standing order against such a course being adopted and if there is nothing otherwise objec-tionable in the said request. But as we have just indicated, in the circumstances of this case, we have no doubt that the failure of the Enquiry Officer to accede to the request made by the employees does not introduce any serious defect in the enquiry itself, and so, we have no hesitation in holding that the result of the said enquiry cannot he successfully challenged in the present proceedin~. It follows that the two marn reasons for interfering with the order of dismissal do not really exist. The charge was under cli. (Vill) and (XVI) of Standing Order No. 10.

It said so and its meaning was quite clear to the workmen who, according to plan, were definitely going slow from January 12, 1960 when the Dual Auto Mills passed into the control of workmen belonging to Union No. 4145. The demand of the workmen, couched as it was, could not be granted by the Enquiry Officer, because the Standing Orders did not permit representation by a member of any but a recognised Union. The additional reasons given by the Tribunal that later the demands of this Union were accepted in respect of wages can hardly justify the action of these workmen in going on an illegal strike and in declining to resume work unless what they demanded was done. There was thus justification for the order passed by the Company. It is on record that the Dual Auto Mills perform a key operation and no rubber goods can be produced without the batches being available. By their action these work- .

men slowed down production of eveiy category and by their refusal to wrok when asked to go back to work cause enormous loss to the Company. The motive underlying the action is more deep seated than a mere quarrel between Chandramma Chaube and Raghunandan Das or the abuses which Raghunandan Das is alleged to have showered on Chandramma Chaube and his Union. It is contended that there was discrimination between the F. Banbury Mill and the Dual Auto Mills because workmen of the Banbury Mill were reinstated but not the workmen of the Dual Auto Mills. The discrimination, if any, was made by Union No. 4145 which nominated those who should be taken back in service. There must be some reason why the Banbury Mill workmen were treated differently and if we are to hazard a guess, it seems that those workmen were not sending out a cold mixture as alleged but that the Dual Auto Mill workmen were taking more time on their own operation.

The production was slowed down not by the Banbury Mill operators but by the Dual Auto Mill operators. Jn other words, the Banbury Mill workmen, though they joined in the strike, did not probably join in the "go slow", but the Dual Auto Mill workmen not only started "go slow" but also led the strike affecting a large number of workmen. In any event the workmen chosen for reinstatement, were chosen by their own Union and it cannot be said that the Company made any discrimination, We are satisfied that in this case the Tribunal was not justified in interfering. It has acted as a court of appeal in scrutinizing the evidence and in reaching conclusions of its own. We are also DUNLOP RUBBEII. CO. v. -WORKMEN (Hidayatul/ah,/. ) 147 utisfied that the conclusions reached by it were not justified on ·the evidence in the case. In these circumstances, we think that th~ order passed by the Tribunal should be vacated and the order passed by the Company ought to be accepted.

It is a pity that these workmen, who, on their own admission were better paid than in any other organisation should lose :heir job in an attempt to get an indirect recognition of their Union. But it cannot be helped because the Company must have a free hand in the internal management of its own affairs. No outside agency should impose its will unless the action of the Company is lacking in bona {ides or is manifestly perverse or unfair. There is nothing to indicate this. At the same time we must say that existence of Union No. 4145 which has a larger membership than Union No. 729 which is the only recognised Union, has in a great measure contributed to this dispute. We have often noticed that Companies favour one Union out of several and thus create rivalry which disturbs industrial peace. It often turns out that this has adverse effect on Company itself. Since Union No. 729 wa~ form-ed in 1950 and Union No. 4145 in 1957 we cannot say that the non-recognition of Union No.

4145 was deliberate. But as that Union seems to be the stronger of the two Unions the Company should seriously consider whether Union No. 4145 should not also be recognised. The appeal must succeed. It will be allowed but we make no order about costs. Appeal allowed.

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.