Facts of the case:
The appellant company was a public limited company, and the respondent was employed
in the same. Goods belonging to the company were stolen at this time and the
blame fell on the respondent. A subsequent enquiry was conducted, and the
respondent was found guilty of gross negligence and misconduct which resulted
in his dismissal. He was then prosecuted for theft, but it ended in his
acquittal. He filed an application for reinstatement into the company after
this but failed. He then filed a complaint before the Labour Commission for
reinstatement and compensation of losses incurred. The appellant company argued
that when the application was dismissed, the respondent was not an employee of
the company, therefore, proceedings under the Industrial dispute Act were
incompetent. The Labour commission dismissed the application of the respondent.
The respondent then applied to the Provisional Industrial Court which reversed
the order of the Labour Commission on the grounds that the dismissed employee
was an employee according to S. 2(10) of the Act and the dispute was an
industrial dispute. Against this order, the company finally appealed to the
Supreme Court.
Key
issues:
The
key issues in this case are:
· Whether
an application for reinstatement or compensation by a dismissed employee is
maintainable, and,
· Whether
a dispute between an individual worker and industry is an industrial dispute.
Decision of the Court:
The court held that under the Industrial Dispute Act, a dispute between
an employer and employee would become an industrial dispute only when it has
the backing of a few workmen or a union. Besides this condition, it will simply
be an individual dispute. It also held that an employee must be allowed to
appear in such proceedings since the scope of the act is wide enough to include
a dispute between employer and employee. The appeal was therefore, dismissed.
Final Ratio:
The court observed that a dispute that concerns only the rights of
individual workers can be held to be an industrial dispute. It said that the
language of S.2 (k) is wide enough to cover a dispute between an individual
employee and employer as a industrial dispute and the act as a whole appeals to
contemplate that the machinery is to settle the disputes that involve rights of
a class of workers as well as individual workers. It also observed the that the
visions of labour legislations in the preamble and Industrial Disputes Act are
different. However, there exists a clear recognition of the rights of an
individual employee that stands distinguished from a class of employees. It also
observed that S. 16 provides for relief for dismissed employees by way of reinstatement
or compensation. Hence, the definition of ‘employee’ will include one who has
been dismissed as well. The court thus
held that Section 16 of Industrial Disputes Act is intended to enable an
employee to enforce his individual rights when he is dismissed, discharged, or
suspended, and in this context, industrial disputes must include individual
employees as well. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
Personal Observations:
[1] Central
Provinces Transport Services Ltd vs. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan, (1957) AIR
1957 SC 104.
0 Comments