DALMIA DADRI CEMENT LIMITED Vs. MURARI LAL BIKANERIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals are by special leave from the judgment and order of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab dated September 1, 1965. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's applications under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act for grant of permission to dismiss five employees of the company. They arose in the following circumstances.

(2.) The appellant is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cement with its registered office at Charkhi Dadri, District Mohindergarh. The respondents are all workmen employed by the appellant. One of them, Murari Lal Bikaneria, respondent in Appeal No. 968 of 1966 was suspended by way of punishment for four days from May 26, 1964 by the appellant on the ground of serious acts of misconduct relating to falsifying the records of the company. This was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Punjab and the appellant's action was upheld by an award dated May 24, 1965 published in the Punjab Government Gazette on June 11, 1965. On May 27, 1964 the then Prime Minister of India expired and on receipt of the news, the appellant closed the cement factory in the general shift as a mark of respect and called a condolence meeting of the workers and staff of the factory at 3.30 p. m. on the same day.

(3.) According to the appellant, after the conclusion of the condolence meeting while the Works Manager of the appellant was in discussion with other officers including one Ishwar Nath, Power House and Mill House Superintendent, the respondent appeared in their midst all of a sudden and demanded that work in the entire factory should cease and all production should stop. The said Superintendent remarked that in a continuous process industry like a cement factory total production in all the shifts could not be stopped. The respondent became insolent and used insulting language to the said Superintendent. He also threatened to call the workmen on strike and stop the factory within a minute if his demand was not acceded to. The Works Manager consulted the Delhi office of the appellant over the telephone and came to learn that ether sister factories were not going to stop their plants completely and that only the work in the office and in the general shift was to be stopped and that the same procedure should be adopted by the appellant's factory. The Works Manager called the representatives of the three unions of workers and communicated to them his decision on the basis of the advice received. Notice to this effect was put up on the notice board of the appellant on the night of May 27, 1964. On the day following when the work in the general shift was closed and work in the shift from 2 a. m. to 10 a. m. was going on, the respondent came to the factory at about 8 a. m. with a number of workers and asked the Works Manager who was then in the company of the said Superintendent about their decision regarding the closure of the continuous process units. On coming to learn from the Manager of the decision arrived at the previous night the respondent said that it was not acceptable to him or to his followers. The respondent and three other workers called upon the Works Manager to address the workers and explain their standpoint. When this was done the respondent shouted to the workers that the Works Manager was a traitor, that they should not listen to what was said by him and that they should close the factory and stop work in all the units. The respondent in company with the said other persons went to the packing section and prevailed upon the workers to desist from working. After visiting different departments he went to the boiler fireman, Banwari Lal (respondent in one of these appeals) and made him blow on the whistle three times as a signal to workmen all over the factory to leave off work. Banwari Lal blew the whistle as directed. The respondent along with other workers then picketed the time office entrance and stopped workmen from going inside to their duty at the change of shift. As a result of this, the kiln had to be stopped at 10-10 A M. and could only get re-started at 2-10 P. M. Charge sheets were issued to the respondent and others including the said Banwari Lal. The first charge sheet to be issued was that on Banwari Lal on the 2nd June followed by that against Murari Lal and others on June 4.