The Binny Limited Vs. their Workmen

The Binny Limited vs their Workmen

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Apr 27, 1973

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/652579

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/652579
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: A.N. Grover,; C.A. Vaidialingam and; S.N. Dwivedi, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 27, 1973
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 1761 (N-L) of 1968
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [J.C. Shah,; K. Subba Rao,; K.N. Wanchoo,; S.M. Sikri and; V. Ramaswami, JJ] The appellant-company was carrying on the business of building contractors. During the years 1948-49 to, 1952-53, the appellant was assessed to sales-tax on the basis that the contracts executed by them were "works contracts". On 5th Apr...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections: Provisions of Standing Order - Order 8

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Binny Limited

Respondent

their Workmen

Legal References

Acts: Provisions of Standing Order - Order 8
Reported In: AIR1973SC1403; 1973CriLJ1119; [1973(26)FLR423]; 1973LabIC1119; (1974)3SCC152; 1973(5)LC728(SC)

Excerpt

.....fact thereby excluding by necessary implication the jurisdiction of a civil court in that regard. but an authority created by a statute cannot question the vires of that statute: or any of the provisions thereof, where under it functions. it must act under the act and not outside it. if it acts on the basis of a provision of that statute which is ultra vires, to that extent it would beating outside the act. in that event, a suit to question the validity of such an order made outside the act would certainly lie in a civil court, the foundation laid by the judicial committee in raleigh investment co. case for construing the expression "under the act" has no legal basis. the entire reasoning of the judicial committee was based upon the assumption that the question of ultra vires can be canvassed and finally decided through the 'machinery provided under the income-tax act. but the income-tax officer, the appellate assistant commissioner and the appellate tribunal are all. creatures of that act and whether the provisions of the act are good or bad is not their concern. as the tribunal is a creature of the statute it can only decide the dispute between the assessee and the commissioner in terms of the: provisions 'of the act and the question of ultra vires is foreign to the scope of its jurisdiction. if an assessee raises such a question, the tribunal can only reject it on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the objection or decide on it. as no such question can be raised or can arise on the tribunal's order, the high court cannot possibly give any decision on the question of ultra vires, because its jurisdiction under s. 66 is a special advisory jurisdiction and its scope is strictly limited. it can, only decide questions of law that arise out of the order of the tribunal and those that are referred to it. 'me appeal to this court under s. 66a(2) does not enlarge the scope of the jurisdiction, for this court can only do what the high court can. any..........accepting his explanation regarding his absence; (iv) the plea of the union that management had acted malafide with the object of victimisation or had indulged in unfair labour practice was not established.5. the labour court ultimately directed reinstatement of ramachandran and in view of the fact that he had obtained leave on a false pretext, the labour court awarded a consolidated sum of rs. 5,000/- as back wages and other amenities.6. it was sought to be contended before us on behalf of the management that the labour court erred in holding that management had no right to cancel leave which has been granted to ramachandran. the provisions of standing order 8(ii) were fully applicable since ramachandran had absented himself for 8 consecutive working days without leave, it should have been held that he had left the company's service without notice, thereby terminating the contract of service. it has further been pointed out that the labour court after having found that ramachandran had obtained leave on a false pretext, fell into a serious error in saying that no question of the management losing confidence in him arose. it was quite clear that his own admission he had acted in a manner by which the management could possibly have no confidence in him for the future. his reinstatement as well as the payment of rs. 500/- as back wages therefore, could not have been ordered according to the well settled law and principles on the point. the last contention seems to be well-founded and we do not consider that reinstatement and payment of rs. 5000/- as bank wages should have been ordered in the circumstances of the present case. at any rate the appellant has undertaken to pay a sum of rs. 8,000/- ex-gratia to ramachandran. this amount shall be paid within two months from the date of announcement of this order. the award is hereby set aside and the appeal shall stand disposed of accordingly. there will be no order as to cost.

Full Judgment

Grover, J.

1. This is an appeal by special leave from an award made by the Labour Court at Bangalore.

2. The appellant company was substituted as the appellant by an Order made by this Court on February 4, 1970 as it had taken over the business of the Bangalore woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'management' One a Ramachandran was working in the Roving section in the Carding Department of the Management's Mills. On 11th June 1956 he requested the Mill Manager for grant of leave of absence for 10 days from 12th June 1956 representing that he wanted the leave as he had to go to his native place to settle a land dispute with his brother-in-law. As all leave with wages and casual leave due to him had already been exhausted, the Mill Manager believing his representation, granted him special leave for 8 days without wages or dearness allowance from 12 the June, 1956.

3. The decision taken by the Management was that Ramachandran had left the service, terminating his contract under Standing Order 8(ii) of the Standing Orders applicable to the establishment, by absenting himself without leave for 8 consecutive working days. An enquiry was also held on July 2, 1966 in the matter. On a dispute being raised by the workmen on behalf of Ramachandran, the Government of Mysore by an Order dated 23rd July, 1964 referred the following points of dispute for adjudication to the labour Court :-

Are the management of Bangalore Woollen Cotton & Silk Mills Company Limited, Bangalore, justified in terminating the services of Shri A. Ramachandran, Roving Section Token No. 39, of the Carding Department? If not, is he entitled to reinstatement with benefits of back wages and continuity of service or to any other relief ?

4. The labour Court made its Award on 26th March, 1968 in which it held inter alia (i) there was no merit in the contention of the Union that Standing Order 8(ii) was not in operation on the 2nd July, 1956, (ii) the management had no right or power to revoke the leave already granted to Ramachandran; (iii) that Ramachandran did not go to his village and had obtained leave on a false pretext. The management was justified in not accepting his explanation regarding his absence;

(iv) the plea of the Union that Management had acted malafide with the object of victimisation or had indulged in unfair labour practice was not established.

5. The Labour Court ultimately directed reinstatement of Ramachandran and in view of the fact that he had obtained leave on a false pretext, the Labour Court awarded a consolidated sum of Rs. 5,000/- as back wages and other amenities.

6. It was sought to be contended before us on behalf of the management that the Labour Court erred in holding that management had no right to cancel leave which has been granted to Ramachandran. The provisions of Standing Order 8(ii) were fully applicable since Ramachandran had absented himself for 8 consecutive working days without leave, it should have been held that he had left the company's service without notice, thereby terminating the contract of service. It has further been pointed out that the Labour Court after having found that Ramachandran had obtained leave on a false pretext, fell into a serious error in saying that no question of the Management losing confidence in him arose. It was quite clear that his own admission he had acted in a manner by which the Management could possibly have no confidence in him for the future. His reinstatement as well as the payment of Rs. 500/- as back wages therefore, could not have been ordered according to the well settled law and principles on the point. The last contention seems to be well-founded and we do not consider that reinstatement and payment of Rs. 5000/- as bank wages should have been ordered in the circumstances of the present case. At any rate the appellant has undertaken to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- ex-gratia to Ramachandran. This amount shall be paid within two months from the date of announcement of this Order. The Award is hereby set aside and the appeal shall stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to cost.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1973 Same Parties The Binny Limited vs their Workmen Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge A.N. Grover,; C.A. Vaidialingam and; S.N. Dwivedi, JJ. Acts & Sections Provisions of Standing Order - Order 8

Labour and Industrial