Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rohtas Industries Ltd. Vs. Workmen Represented by Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh and anr.

Rohtas Industries Ltd. vs Workmen Represented by Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Sep 03, 1976
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/653087

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 1012 of 1976
Subject
Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

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

- INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT (39 OF 1925), Sections 74 & 82 :[S.B.Sinha & V.S.Sirpurkar,JJ] Construction of Will Recourse to Arm chair rule Held, When doubt arises as to intention of testator, conduct of testator in dealing with property in question and surrounding circumstances become relevant for ascertaining intent...

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial
Acts & sections
Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 10

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rohtas Industries Ltd.

Respondent

Workmen Represented by Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh and anr.

Legal References

Acts
Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 10
Reported In
AIR1977SC1867; 1977LabIC1190; (1977)2SCC153

Excerpt

- indian succession act (39 of 1925), sections 74 & 82 :[s.b.sinha & v.s.sirpurkar,jj] construction of will recourse to arm chair rule held, when doubt arises as to intention of testator, conduct of testator in dealing with property in question and surrounding circumstances become relevant for ascertaining intention of testator. sections 74 & 82: construction of will - demised property was self-acquired property of testator - testator, however, declaring that he and his brother are owners of property having equal share - that ownership of first floor will be of his sons and family members of his brother would be owners of 2nd floor held, doctrine of family settlement will apply in such case. will should be given a broad construction keeping in view special equity principle. .....admitted the appeal and have heard learned counsel for both sides. the learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contends that the management has, by its conduct, forfeited its right to examine witnesses before the tribunal. we are not impressed by this argument. the tribunal refused to allow the management an opportunity to examine witnesses on the sole ground that it had not earlier submitted the written statement. that ground in an industrial matter, would not be sufficient to refuse examination of witnesses when the management later on pressed for it. this is against the principles of natural justice. it appears from the award that the tribunal came to its conclusion in respect of item no. 6 relying upon certain documents without giving an opportunity to the management to produce evidence in rebuttal. in view of this we cannot sustain the award with regard to item no. 6. the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal for disposing item no. 6 referred to above preferably within 3 months from receipt of this order after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties. the award in respect of other items stands. there will be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

P.K. Goswami, J.

1. There was a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna under Section 10(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act There were several items of dispute referred to the Tribunal for adjudication and the Tribunal gave its award on 31st January. 1974. The management has filed the application of special leave. When this matter had earlier come up for hearing this Court issued notice to the respondents to show cause why special leave should not be granted only with regard to Item No. 6, namely 6 in the Schedule of reference, which may be quoted:

6. Whether the following Malis are entitled to be departmentalised? If so, since when and in which scale of pay?

1. Shri Pukhan

2. Shri Ram Naresh

3. Shri Mahadeo

4. Shri Harigovind

5. Shri Umraon Singh

6. Shri Deonarain

7. Shri Suraj Singh

8. Shri Bishamdeo

9. Shri Baban Singh

10. Shri Jagdish

11. Shri Sheodeni

12. Shri Ram Pratap

13. Shri Ganeshi

14. Shri Deonandan

15. Shri Rampati

16. Shri Ram Bilash

17. Shri Suraj Choubey

18. Shri Ramlakhan Chaudary

19. Shri Baliram

20. Shri Gautam Giri

21. Shri Sahdeo Sharad

22. Shri Angad.

2. We have admitted the appeal and have heard learned Counsel for both sides. The learned Counsel for the respondents strenuously contends that the management has, by its conduct, forfeited its right to examine witnesses before the Tribunal. We are not impressed by this argument. The Tribunal refused to allow the management an opportunity to examine witnesses on the sole ground that it had not earlier submitted the written statement. That ground in an industrial matter, would not be sufficient to refuse examination of witnesses when the management later on pressed for it. This is against the principles of natural justice. It appears from the award that the Tribunal came to its conclusion in respect of item No. 6 relying upon certain documents without giving an opportunity to the management to produce evidence in rebuttal. In view of this we cannot sustain the award with regard to item No. 6. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for disposing item No. 6 referred to above preferably within 3 months from receipt of this order after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties. The award in respect of other items stands. There will be no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial