text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
Ordinarily this Court does not go into findings of fact recorded by a tribunal unless there are special reasons, as, for example, where the finding is based on no evidence, which of course is not the case here. Ratio |
Learned counsel for the appellants however urges that the finding of the tribunal that the workmen concerned were guilty of go slow is perverse and that evidence which was relevant and material has been ignored. ARG |
As the case involves the discharge of as many as 119 workmen we have decided to go broadly into the evidence to see whether the finding of the tribunal is patently wrong. Ratio |
For this purpose we may first refer to the past history of the working of the respondent factory. Ratio |
It appears that till this court condemned the practice of go slow in the case of Bharat Sugar Mills(1). Ratio |
It was not unusual in the State of Bihar for workmen to give notice of go slow to employers as if it was a legitimate weapon to be used in matters of dispute between the employers and the workmen. Ratio |
In the present case the respondent had complained as far back at 1950 that go slow was being resorted to. Ratio |
In 1950 a court of enquiry was constituted to enquire into this question and it made a report that there was a slow down on the part of the workman for several days in February March 1950. Ratio |
It also came to the conclusion that the slow down was instigated and sponsored by union leaders. Ratio |
In 1951, the workmen gave notice of go slow in case their demands were not fulfilled (vide exhibit A 1) Similar notices were given in 1952 (vide exhibit A 2), In 1954 (vide exhibit A 3 and A 4) and in 1955 (vide Exs. A 5, A 6 and A 7 and on some occasions threats of go slow did actually materialise. Ratio |
Besides these notices the management had occasion to complain in 1955.1957, and 1958 more than once that go slow was being (x) [1962] 3 S.C.R,.599 resorted to at the cane carrier. Ratio |
Thus it appears that resorting to go slow was a common practice in this factory. Ratio |
It is in the background of this persistent attitude of the workmen that we have to see what happened in November 1960. Ratio |
We have already referred to the fact that the workmen were dissatisfied with the new incentive bonus scheme proposed by the respondent. Ratio |
It is not necessary to go into the merits of this new scheme which was proposed in September 1960. Ratio |
But it appears that when there was dispute in the 1959 60 season on the question of how much cane should be crushed, the secretary of the union had accepted in a conference with the Assistant Labour Commissioner that there had been a drop in the amount of cane crushed, though he maintained that it was still the average... |
He had also stated then that the workmen were dissatisfied with the incentive bonus scheme in that season and had withdrawn the extra efforts they were putting in after the introduction of the incentive scheme for the first time in 1956 57. Ratio |
Further it was admitted by the secretary in his evidence that when the bonus scheme was proposed in 1960 61, it was considered by the workmen in a meeting and it was decided that if the new system was introduced without the consent of the workmen they would not put in any extra effort for giving more than what was the ... |
The evidence also shows that there were conferences about the new scheme and at one stage the respondent suggested that the norm should be 30,000 maunds crush per day while the union was agreeable to 29,500 maunds per day. Ratio |
But there was no agreement in this behalf and so that workmen carried out their resolve not to put in extra efforts to give more than the average normal crushing per day. Ratio |
Thus the season which began in November 1960 started with the withdrawal of extra efforts by the workmen which in plain terms means that the workman were not prepared to do what they had been doing in this previous season 1959 60 and were slowing down production as compared to what it was in 1959 60. Ratio |
It is in the background of this history and this admission that we have to look broadly into the evidence to see whether the tribunal 's conclusion that there was go slow is justified. Ratio |
The main contention on behalf of the respondent in this connection is that one has to see is that is called crushing speed for a day of 24 hours and it is this crushing speed which would determine whether there was go slow during the period in dispute. ARG |
It has been urged that crushing speed per 24 hours is different from the actual crushing per day or the average crushing for a period, for the actual crushing per day from which the crushing speed is arrived at depends on a number of factors, particularly it depends on the amount of stoppages that take place during the... |
Crushing speed per twenty four hours on the other hand is arrived at by excluding the stoppages and then working out what would be the amount of cane 600 crushed in 24 hours if there had been no stoppages. Ratio |
The case of the respondent further is that when it gave the notice on December 15, 1960 asking for a crush of 32,000 maunds per day it really meant that the workmen should work in such a way as to give a crushing speed of 32,000 maunds per day, though the words "crushing speed" were not actually used in the notice. Rat... |
It is however pointed out that the notice when it mentions 32,000 maunds as the normal crush expected per day excluded stoppages other than those due to over loading or under loading of the cane carrier. Ratio |
Therefore, the respondent wanted the workmen to give a crushing speed of 32,000 maunds per day which would exclude stoppages, the only exception being stoppages due to over loading or underloading, which, according to the respondent, is due to the deliberate action of the cane carrier workmen to cause stoppages, We thi... |
Further it is not in dispute that the labour force was more or less the same throughout these years, and therefore we have to see whether during the period from November 27 to December 15, 1960 there was any significant drop in the crushing speed. Ratio |
If there was such a significant drop that could only be due to go slow tactics which have been euphemistically called withdrawal of extra efforts. Ratio |
It is necessary therefore to took at the charts produced in this case to determine this question. Ratio |
The appellants mainly relay on chart exhibit W 3. Ratio |
That is however a chart of actual crushing per day during the period from 1954 55 to 1960 61 and has nothing to do with crushing speed which in our opinion would be the determining factor in finding out whether there was go slow. Ratio |
The actual crush may vary as we have already said due to so many factors, particularly due to stoppages for one reason or the other. Ratio |
The respondent produced another chart exhibit W 4 which shows the crushing speed for the entire season from 1954 55 to 1959 60. Ratio |
We consider that it would not be proper to take the figures for the years 1956 57 to 1959 60 in which years incentive bonus schemes were in force and which according to the workmen resulted in extra efforts on their part. Ratio |
But the figures of 1954 55 and 1955 56 would be relevant because in these years there was no incentive bonus scheme and no night weighment 'of carts. Ratio |
The workmen have also produced a chart showing cane crushed, actual crushing days and crushing per day; but this chart does not show the crushing speed and does not take into account the stoppages. Ratio |
It merely shows the actual number of working days and the average per day. Ratio |
That however would not be an accurate way of finding out whether in fact there was go slow during the period with which we are concerned. Ratio |
The respondent 's chart exhibit W 4 while showing the same amount of actual crushing also shows what would be the crushing 601 speed per 24 hours after excluding stoppages. Ratio |
This chart in our opinion is the proper chart for determining whether there was go slow during the revelant period. Ratio |
Now according to this chart (exhibit W 4) the daily average crushing speed in 1954 55 was 29,784 maunds and in 1955 56, 30,520 maunds without incentive bonus and without night weighment of carts. Ratio |
It appears that from the middle of 1959 60 season night weighment of carts started and it is not in dispute that resulted in an increase in the daily crushing and this increase is put at over 2,000 ' maunds per day by the respondent; the secretary of the union admitted that this would result in an increase of about 2,5... |
We have already said that in the years 1954 and 1955 there was no incentive bonus and if these figures are accepted as giving the average crushing speed per day (when there was no incentive bonus and no weighment of carts at night) it would in our opinion be not improper to accept that the crushing speed with night wei... |
Therefore, when the respondent gave notice on December 15, 1960 that the average crushing per day should be 32,000 maunds excluding stoppages (except those due to over loading or underloading of the cane carrier, for which the workmen would be responsible) it Cannot be said that the respondent had fixed something which... |
It is true that when negotiations were taking place in connection with the incentive bonus scheme for the year 1960 61, the respondent was prepared to accept a crushing speed of 30,000 maunds per day above which the incentive bonus scheme would apply. Ratio |
That is however easily understood for a proper incentive bonus scheme always fixes a norm which is slightly lower than the average in order that there may be greater incentive to labour to produce more than the average. Ratio |
Even so, when the incentive bonus scheme for 1960 61, was not acceptable to the workmen and they had already decided to withdraw what they called extra effort, the respondent would not be unjustified in asking for the full average crushing speed based on the production of the years 1954 55 and 1955 56, when there was n... |
It has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the crushing speed of 32,000 maunds per 24 hours is not correctly arrived at for it does not take into account half hour 's rest per shift which is permissible under section 55(1) of the Factories Act, No. 63 of 1948. ARG |
Thus, according to the appellants, crushing speed should be worked out on 22 1/2 hours per day and the crushing will then be less by 1/16th and will only come to 30,000 maunds per day. Ratio |
Reliance in this connection is placed on section 55(2) of the Factories Act, which lays down that "the State Government . may by written order and for the reasons specified therein, exempt any factory from the provisions of sub section (1) so however that the total number of hours worked by a worker without an interval... |
It is therefore urged that the workmen were entitled to half an hour 's rest per shift in any case because the shift was for eight hours. ARG |
The respondent on the other hand relies on section 64(2) (d) for the Factories Act and its case is that the State Government had made rules under that provision in connection with sugar factories, which apply to it. ARG |
Section 64(2) (d) is in these terms: "The State Government may make rules in respect of adult workers in factories providing for the exemption, to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed (d) of workers engaged in any work which for technical reasons must be carried on continuously from the provi... |
We are of opinion that this provision in section 64(2) (d) being a special provision will over ride both sub sections(1) and (2) of section 55, for it gives power to the State Government by making rules to exempt certain types of factories from the application of the whole of section 55, subject to such conditions and ... |
It appears that rules were framed in this behalf by the Government of Bihar in 1950 by which sugar factories were exempted from the application of section 55 for purposes of handling and crushing of cane, among others subject to the condition that the workers concerned shall be allowed to take light refreshment or meal... |
Thus cane crushing operations are exempt from section 55(1) and section 55(2) subject to the condition mentioned above. Ratio |
We may also refer to section 64(5) which lays down that the rules made under this section shall remain in force for not more than three years. Ratio |
The rules to which reference has been made are of 1950; but there is nothing to show that these rules were not continued after every interval of three years and the position that the exemption applies to sugar factories even now as provided in these rules was not disputed. Ratio |
We shall therefore proceed on the basis that the exemption applied to sugar factories in Bihar. Ratio |
In view of this, the workmen cannot claim half an hour 's rest per shift as urged on their behalf, though sometime must be allowed for refreshment or light meals as provided in the provision granting exemption. Ratio |
This means that a few minutes would be allowed to each individual in turn in each shift for light refreshment or meals in such a way that the work does not stop. Ratio |
If we make a total allowance of half an hour or so in this connection the average crushing speed would be reduced to slightly over 31,000 maunds per day and that is all the adjustment that the appellants can claim in view of the exemption under section 64(2) (d). Ratio |
Let us now turn to the actual position between November 27 and December 15, 1960. Ratio |
This will appear from chart exhibit W 7. 603 That chart shows a crushing speed of 29,859 maunds per day from November 10 to 26, when, according to the respondent, there was only mild go slow. Ratio |
We are however concerned with the period from November 27 to December 15, 1960 and the crushing speed for 24 hours during that period was 27,830. Ratio |
Now if we take the average crushing speed as 32,000 maunds per 24 hours without any adjustment or even a little over 31,000 maunds with adjustment following upon the rule relating to exemption from section 55, there is certainly a significant drop in average crushing speed during this period. Ratio |
Further we find that there is a significant drop even as compared to the period between November 10 to 26, 1960, inasmuch as the drop was over 2,000 maunds per day. Ratio |
Therefore it cannot be said that the tribunal was incorrect in its conclusion that there had been go slow during the period from November 27 to December 15. Ratio |
It may be added that when comparisons are made on the basis of crushing speed and labour force is more or less constant, as is the ease here, other minor factors to which our attention was drawn on behalf of the appellants during argument do not matter at all. Ratio |
Even if we take the figure of 30,000 maunds as the crushing speed which the respondent had put forward at the time of the discussion on the incentive bonus scheme, we find that though there was not much difference during the period from November 10 to November 26, there was a significant drop of over 2,000 maunds per d... |
Looking at the matter in this broad way and that is all that we are prepared to do, for we are examining a finding of fact of the tribunal we cannot say that its conclusion that there was go slow between November 27 and December 15 is not justified. Ratio |
Finally, it is urged that notice was given to the workmen on December 15 and they were discharged on December 17, 1960 without giving them a change to give the necessary production as desired in the notice. ARG |
But as we have already indicated, the charge in the notice of December 15 was that the workmen had been going slow from November 27 and they were asked to give an undertaking to improve and the respondent was apparently willing to overlook the earlier lapse. Ratio |
Even assuming that the demand of an undertaking was unjustified, it does appear that the attitude of the workmen was that they would do no better; and in those circumstances they were discharged on December 17, 1960 on the basis of misconduct consisting of go slow between November 27 and December 16, 1960. Ratio |
That misconduct has been held proved by the tribunal and in our opinion that decision of the tribunal cannot be said to be wrong. Ratio |
In the circumstances the tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the discharge was fully justified In this view of the matter, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Ratio |
In the circumstances we order parties to bear their own costs. RPC |
Appeal dismissed. RPC |
The respondent No FAC |
I was tried before the Court of Sessions, Visakhapatnam for offences under s. 120-B, Indian Penal Code, s. 409, s. 477-A FAC |
and s. 471 read with s. 467, I.P.C FAC |
while respondent No. 2 was tried for an offence under s. 120-B and for offences under ss FAC |
409 read with s. 109, 477-A and 471 read with s. 467, I.P.C FAC |
Each of the respondents was convicted of the first two offences, but FAC |
the respondent No FAC |
I alone was convicted of the other two offences FAC |
Various sentences were passed against them by the Additional Sessions judge, Visakhapatnam, who presided over the court FAC |
The respondents preferred appeals before the High Court challenging their convictions and sentences FAC |
The State on the other hand preferred an application for revision under s. 439, Cr FAC |
P.C. for the enhancement of the sentences passed on the respondents FAC |
The High Court allowed the two appeals, acquitted the respondents and dismissed the application for revision preferred by the State FAC |
The State of Andhra Pradesh has come up before this Court in appeal by obtaining special leave under Art FAC |
136 of the Constitution FAC |
The prosecution case in so far as it is material for the decision of this appeal is as follows FAC |
In the year 1929 the Andhra Engineering Co., which was originally a partnership firm formed by one D.L.N. Raju was converted into a private limited, company with its headquarters at Visakhapatnam FAC |
We shall refer to this company throughout as the AECO FAC |
It obtained licences from the Government under the Electricity Act for supply of electrical energy to Visakhapatnam, Anakapalli and some other places FAC |
As the AECO did not have the necessary capital to undertake the work Raju floated in the year 1933 a public limited company called Visakhapatnam Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., and another in the year 1936 called the Anakapalli Electric Supply Corporation Ltd FAC |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.