SUR ENAMEL AND STAMPING WORLD LIMITED Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant and its workmen. The disputes was with regard to the dismissal of 11 workmen and was referred to the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal. In this appeal we are concerned with three only out of those 11, as the company was given special leave to appeal against the Tribunal's award in respect of these three. They are Manik Chandra Das, Nagen Bora and Monoharan.

(2.) We shall deal first with the case of Manik Chandra Das. It appears that on October 23, 1959 he was served with a notice in which it was alleged that a number of articles had been spoiled due to his faults. He was asked to show cause within 48 hours of the receipt of the notice why the company should not take disciplinary measures against him. In his reply of October 25, he denied any responsibility in the matter and mentioned that he had reported to the supervisor and sardars about the defective articles before hand and according to the advice given by them had painted borders. According to the managements an enquiry was held against Manik on October 29, 1959 and on the report of the enquiry officer, the Workers Manager, he was dismissed. The order of dismissal was made on November 11, 1959. In this it was stated that he had been dismissed from the service of the company "for causing wilful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with another or others of any orders of the superior or of the management."

(3.) It appears that some evidence was led before the Industrial Tribunal against Manik to show that he had caused some damage to the company's property. The Tribunal held that the rules of natural justice had not been followed by the domestic tribunal. It then examined the evidence adduced by the witnesses on behalf of the management and came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient material before the Tribunal to hold that Manik was guilty of insubordination or disobedience for which the dismissal order purported to have been passed. The Tribunal further pointed out that the evidence before it in respect of the alleged damage done to the company property was not sufficient for establishing any charge which might merit dismissal. Accordingly, it set aside the order of dismissal passed by the Company and directed his reinstatement.