CALTEX INDIA LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from an application made by M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd., (hereinafter called the appellant) under S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) against its 23 workmen represented by the Madras Kerosene Oil Workers' Union (hereinafter called the respondent) for permission to dismiss them from their service. It would be convenient to set out very briefly the material facts leading to this application. It appears that the Govt. of Madras had referred a dispute concerning workmen and managements of the three Oil Companies, viz., The Burmah-Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. Ltd., the Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd., and the appellant, operating in that area.

(2.) The Industrial Tribunal found that the strike was illegal and that the lock-out declared by the appellant was legal and justified. It, however, refused permission to the appellant to dismiss 19 workmen and suspend one. The appellant's application to dismiss one workman was, however, allowed on the ground that he had committed overt acts of misdemeanour during the period of the strike. On appeal the Labour Appellate Tribunal confirmed the findings and conclusion of the original tribunal. The appellate tribunal has held that the strike was illegal, the lock-out was legal but that the punishment sought to be meted out to the workmen was unduly severe and so no permission should be granted to the appellant as asked for by it. It is on these findings that the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant is based. In the present appeal the appellant challenges the correctness and the propriety of the final order passed by the tribunals below.

(3.) It is true that the conduct of the appellant in refusing to give the usual advance of Rs. 5 to Rs. 7 to its workmen on the Tamil New Year's Day was tactless and showed a lack of human and sympathetic approach; but even so, the tribunals have held and rightly that the strike was illegal and that the refusal of the respondents to obey the reasonable and legal orders issued by the appellant's officers amounted to insubordination and misconduct under the appellant's standing orders have been duly certified and they are binding between the parties so long as they stand. It is also found that a proper enquiry was held and charges framed against the respondents have been duly proved in the opinion of the enquiring officer. No mala fide is suggested nor is victimisation alleged. It is on these facts that the learned Attorney-General has relied in support of his argument that the tribunals below have acted illegally and without jurisdiction in refusing to grant permission to the appellant. In our opinion this contention is well-founded and must be upheld.