The Workman Of The Fire Stone Tyre & Rubber Co Pvt Ltd v. Fire Stone Tyre of Rubber Co Pvt .Ltd., (1976)3 SCC 819

CITATION	1973 SCR (3) 587
DATE OF JUDGMENT	06th March 1973
COURT	Supreme Court India
APPELLANT	The Workman Of The Fire Stone Tyre & Rubber Co Pvt Ltd
RESPONDENT	Fire Stone Tyre of Rubber Co Pvt .Ltd.
BENCH	Justice Vaidyialingam, C.A; Dua, I.D.

INTRODUCTION

The Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 was passed in April 1947 to regulate industrial disputes and improve worker access to them. Its principal objective was to ensure fairness between employers and employees, prevent any form of exploitation, and uphold peace and harmony. The Act also specifies the procedures to be followed and the conditions for reviewing disputes, as well as the authority granted to regulatory bodies.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The company that responded produced tires in Bombay and delivered them from a warehouse in Delhi. The employees of the company were at odds with their boss since several of them had been fired as a result of the results of a domestic inquiry.

The Industrial Tribunal Act was revised in 1971 while the dispute was still pending, adding Section 11A and granting the Industrial Tribunal Appellate Authority over the Domestic Enquiry ruling.

The Tribunal upheld the Employer’s position and disallowed the retroactive application of Section 11A in this situation.

The Supreme Court was then petitioned to review the judgment. The petitioner’s attorney argued that Section 11A covers all outstanding cases prior to December 15, 1971 (the day the act was passed), as the language of the law obviously suggests, not just cases filed after that date. On the other hand, the respondents argued that because the modification was meant to apply to all future situations, it should not have been permitted in this particular instance. Different interpretations of Section 11A were made by the two sides.

ISSUE RAISED

1. What is the proper interpretation of section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether it has a retrospective application (whether it applies to industrial disputes pending as on 15-12-1971)

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

An employer is now required to conduct a proper internal investigation during which all relevant facts must be presented. When a dispute is referred for adjudication and it is discovered that the management’s domestic investigation was flawed or that none had been conducted at all, the employer’s order of discharge or termination becomes invalid, and the Labour Tribunals are left with no choice but to order the reinstatement of the affected workers.

The Labour Tribunals now have full power and jurisdiction to review the evidence and determine whether the evidence supports the finding of misconduct, even in cases where a domestic inquiry has been conducted and a finding of misconduct has been recorded. If the inquiry proceedings are deemed proper and the finding of misconduct is also accepted, the Tribunal has no power to determine whether the punishment of dismissal or discharge was necessary, and the Tribunal has no power to review the appropriateness of the punishment, dismissal, or discharge

The employer will not be given the chance to present evidence before the Labour Tribunal to support his action in situations where he had neither conducted an inquiry nor when the Labour Tribunal found that the employer’s investigation was flawed.

If an employer violates the Standing Orders, he commits an illegal act, and the Tribunal need simply immediately annul the illegal order that was passed.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

Because he cannot serve as both an inquiry officer and a witness in the proceedings, a small-scale employer who is a witness to an employee’s misconduct will be prohibited from conducting an inquiry against the employee. He will have the right to discipline, for which he can file a charge sheet and apply the necessary punishment after calling for an explanation, without first completing an investigation. This will be a circumstance when the employer has done absolutely no inquiry. However, the employer will have sufficient evidence on hand to provide to any Tribunal to convince it of the justification for the action done.         

JUDGEMENT

The Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 was deemed by the supreme court to be a beneficial law passed by the legislature in order to benefit workers. The Act was deemed beneficial to the public good by the Court, who decided to apply the right legal standard. Additionally, it was established that if there was a disagreement between the two sides, tolerance would be used in the workers’ best interests.

The aforementioned part will not be applicable in this instance nonetheless because the lawsuit was filed before the modification. Only complaints submitted after the Industrial Dispute Act’s amendment in 1947 would be covered by it.

CONCLUSION

According to the layout of the section and, in particular, the wording of the Proviso, Section 11A does not apply to conflicts referenced before December 15, 1971. Only conflicts referred for adjudication on or after December 15, 1971, and not before, are covered by the clause. The appeals are granted to the degree that the three orders from the Labour Court (Nos. 1995 of 1972, 1996 of 1972, and 2386 of 1972) contradict our decisions on both issues. The Tribunal and the Labour Courts will proceed with the adjudication of the disputes in each of these appeals in accordance with the conclusions drawn in this decision.          

REFERENCE

1. https://indiankanoon.org

This Article is written by Prazzal Mohanty student of SOA National Institute of Law, BBSR; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.